Sitting of 13 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Electrical Appliances and Accessories (Safety)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the Joint Committee set up by the British Standards Institution and the Electrical Development Association to cover electrical appliances and accessories; and what further development of the work of this committee is contemplated.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Joint Committee of the Electrical Development Association and the British Standards Institution on the safety of electrical appliances and accessories was set up after the war to test and advise on cases submitted to it where there may be doubt with regard to safety.
    I understand that no development of the work of the Committee is contemplated; it will continue to operate as at present.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that that is exactly what I feared? Does he know that the Consumer Advisory Council of the B.S.I. has been pressing for a long time for a Kite Mark scheme on this range of appliances? Can he give any indication whether that is likely to materialise?
    Mr. Erroll: No, but I will make inquiries.

    Imported Fruit (Standards)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the contamination of apples imported from the Lebanon for sale in Coventry
    188
    by arsenic and lead on the skins; and what care is exercised by his Department to ensure that imported fruit is of the required standard when making trade agreements.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I am aware that some Lebanese apples have been found to be contaminated. All the Lebanese apples have, of course, been imported privately but the question of contamination has been taken up by Her Majesty's Embassy in Beirut and the Lebanese authorities have given an assurance that they have arranged for future consignments to be inspected before shipment. As the hon. Member will have gathered from the Answer given to her on 5th May by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, fruit imported into this country is subject to examination on arrival under the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations, 1937.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will give satisfaction, certainly in Coventry? Is he further aware that we were worried not about the examination at this end but about the examination in the exporting countries? May I thank him for what he has done?
    Sir P. Agnew: Does not this trouble over the importing of apples from a country which does not usually send them here arise because the Government have imported them for balance of payments or political reasons? Should not the Government provide better protection, by means of stiff import duties on foreign apples being imported into this country, in order to see that only those of high grade are brought here?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That raises very different issues. I think that the circumstances in which we relaxed the quota restrictions in this case were very special and were understood by everybody.

    Cotton Textiles, Hong Kong
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Pakistan is now dumping textiles into Hong Kong at prices which only cover the cost of raw materials; since both are selling below Lancashire costs, if he will call a conference of all Commonwealth

    189
    textile interests to prevent their mutual self-destruction; and if he will make a statement on the position.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. I have no evidence that Pakistani textiles are being dumped into Hong Kong.
    As regards the second part of the Question, the representatives of the United Kingdom industry have been holding discussions with representatives of the Indian and Pakistani industries. If these discussions eventually result in agreement the way will be open for the Lancashire industry to take up the conditional offer of the Hong Kong industry to reopen negotiations for a voluntary agreement.
    Mr. Osborne: If I send my hon. Friend a report from The Times giving the details of these complaints in Hong Kong, will he look at there? Secondly, can he tell the House whether Sir Frank Lee reached any agreement with Hong Kong on his recent trip there, and, if so, what?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: A statement has already been made about Sir Frank Lee's visit. Answering the first part of the question, any evidence of alleged dumping is a matter in the first instance for the Hong Kong Government.
    Mr. McCann: Is not the Minister aware that the recent talks have been concerned only with grey cloth being brought into the country, that the question of yarn has not been mentioned and that the spinners of Lancashire feel that, even though an agreement is reached, nothing will be done to protect their side of the industry?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Question which I was answering referred to textiles rather than to yarn.

    Japanese Wiping Rags (Import)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he held with members of the Waste Trade Federation before allowing the importation of Japanese wiping rags under open general licence; and what steps he is taking to protect firms engaged in the general waste reclamation trade against the dumping of these articles.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: None, Sir. I have at present no evidence of dumping, but it is, of course, open to the industry to present its case.
    Mr. Johnson: is my hon. Friend aware that the importation of these very cheap Japanese wiping rags has grave consequences for firms which were engaged in this reclamation trade before the war? Will he consult the trade further about the matter and at least give an assurance that he will take action if the firms concerned are threatened by this dumping?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If they consider that they are threatened by the dumping, it is. I think, for them, in the first instance, if they are the injured party, to take the necessary steps to put the matter before the Board of Trade. I would remind my hon. Friend that this is one of many commodities used by industry which were put on open general licence on 1st August. 1957, as part of our policy of removing import controls as the balance of payments permits.

    Export Credit Guarantee Department
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade the usual length of time required by the Export Credit Guarantees Department for the consideration of applications.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Seventy-five per cent. of applications for approvals of amounts which may be shipped to individual buyers under short-term policies are dealt with within three days. The time taken to deal with applications for policies varies considerably. If the hon. Member would let me know exactly what sort of application he has in mind. I will see if it is possible to give him more precise information.
    Mr. Holt: I am obliged for that Answer. When there is delay, is it due, possibly, to the inadequacy of machinery in some countries for obtaining the necessary information, and does the Minister feel that more professional advice, rather than reliance on the trade attachés in the different countries, would be better?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I should want to examine what the hon. Gentleman means by "professional advice". Inevitably, there is some delay when it is a matter of investigating the creditworthiness of a firm in what may be a distant country. It would be best if the

    191
    hon. Gentleman would let me have particulars of any case he may have in mind, and I will look into it myself.

    Butter Imports
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about measures to meet complaints from farmers, firms, organisations and Governments at home and in other parts of the British Commonwealth and Europe regarding imports of butter from Sweden and Finland, having regard to the fact that there is a case of dumping.
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now state the result of his discussions with the New Zealand Government about butter imports.
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now reached a decision on the validity of the complaint made by New Zealand and the English Milk Marketing Board on the dumping of butter by foreign suppliers to the United Kingdom market; and whether he will take apropriate action in the national interest under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but an announcement will be made very shortly—I hope, early next week.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that a satisfactory statement about effective action is eagerly awaited by all who are concerned not only for the prosperity and interests of our fellow subjects in New Zealand but for the future of the British export trade to that country?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I would rather not say anything which would in any way forestall the statement.
    Mr. Lipton: Why have we been fobbed off by all these vague words, repeating exactly what the Minister said last week? What have our good friends in New Zealand done to merit the disgraceful treatment meted out to them by the present Government?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that this is only the second dumping decision which we have had under this comparatively new legislation. I do not think that the House
    192
    will expect me to make any apology for the fact that very weighty consideration has had to be given to all the matters involved here, including submissions from many Governments.
    Mr. Hurd: As this is clearly such a complex matter and many other countries appear to be dumping one kind of food or another in the United Kingdom, will the Government, once they have reached their decision, issue a White Paper setting out fully the considerations which have weighed in this particular case concerning butter?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I will note my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that this matter of trade with New Zealand has been a subject of public notice for a considerable number of weeks? Does he realise that the House, which has a great respect for New Zealand, a country which has been a very loyal and co-operative friend of the United Kingdom, feels that undue delay is being experienced here and that it is time the Government reached not only a settlement but a settlement which will, we hope, be favourable to New Zealand?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will note my remark that it is hoped to make an announcement early next week. I must remind him also of the procedure in this matter. We had to give reasonable time for all those concerned to submit their arguments, and they were given until the end of March. I do not, therefore, think that it can be said that a really unreasonable time has been taken to consider the very complicated matters involved.
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of butter has been imported from Poland in the first four months of 1958; what has been the average free on board price per cwt. of these imports; what price the consumer pays for butter in Poland; and whether he is satisfied that these relative prices do not contravene the existing anti-dumping agreements.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: During January to March, 1958, imports of butter from Poland amounted to 5,796 tons. The figures for April are not yet available.
    The Board of Trade has no information about the free-on-board price of

    193
    these imports, nor about the price the consumer pays for butter in Poland.
    With regard to the last part of the Question, there is no anti-dumping agreement with Poland, and the question of contravention of anti-dumping agreements does not arise.
    Mr. Turton: What does arise is the question whether this butter is dumped contrary to the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. Has my hon. Friend no power at all to stop dumped butter from Poland?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We have received no complaint in regard to Poland. We have, however, recently received representations about the level of Polish butter imports, which we are considering.
    Mr. Turton: Is my hon. Friend stating that at no time in the course of their discussions have the New Zealand representatives mentioned Polish imports?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: They may have been mentioned in the course of the wider discussions on New Zealand's agricultural problems which are taking place, in the main, with the Minister of Agriculture. I was referring to a complaint under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act.

    Restrictive Trading Agreements
    Sir J. Barlowasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements regards himself as having no power to withdraw from the register agreements which have been abandoned whether before or after proceedings have been commenced in respect thereof; and whether he will introduce declaratory legislation to ensure that an agreement abandoned before proceedings are commenced in respect thereof may be dealt with under Section 12 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, as being no longer an agreement of any substantial economic significance.
    Mr. Erroll: I am sure there can be no doubt that the Registrar's interpretation of his powers is correct. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir." The intention of the Act would not be met if agreements which had been abandoned were by that fact alone to fall within Section 12.

    Consumer Goods (Standards)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that deadlock has been reached between the British Standards Institution and manufacturers, following all reasonable negotiation, whether Her Majesty's Government will now consider legislation on a consumer standard.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. There is no general deadlock. Discussions about the application of the Kite Mark to consumer goods have come to a standstill on one item only, children's footwear. In any case, my right hon. Friend and I do not consider that compulsory standards would be the best way of serving the consumer's interests.
    Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that I am very grateful, after three and a half years, to have wrung an admission from him that deadlock has been reached in this matter of children's footwear? Will he now enlighten me on something which is really puzzling me? If the Government are not prepared to legislate when manufacturers refuse to co-operate with the B.S.I., what is the answer? Is the consumer to do without a standard in children's footwear because the manufacturers say that they will not co-operate with the B.S.I.?
    Mr. Erroll: No, I do not think that we should generalise on the basis of one example only of deadlock. I think that we should also rely on the strong competition which exists in these articles; there are many possible choices which the customer has before making a purchase of children's footwear.
    Miss Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible—not, of course, mentioning legislation.

    Raw Materials (Prices)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that rubber has dropped to 1s. 9d. per lb. in the United Kingdom, the lowest price for four years, and that the prices of metals, like copper, tin, nickel, and aluminium have been saved only by drastic cuts in production, he will explore

    195
    the possibility of calling a special conference of all industrialised countries in order to produce some price stability in raw materials; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, Sir. The Government's attitude to this important problem was fully explained by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, in his speech in the Budget Debate on 16th April.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a disappointing reply? Does he realise that, in North Malaya, for example, of the 497 tin mines, 144 are closed, and that of the 41 tin dredges, 10 are not operating, and 20 per cent. of the workers are unemployed? Is not it stupid for us to be spending £1,500 million a year on armaments to contain Communism while doing nothing to help its containment when it is coming in at a back door in the Far East? Will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I thought that it was rather a disappointing Question, because it proved that my hon. Friend had not read my right hon. Friend's speech. I hope that he will now remedy the omission. We certainly do not exclude the possibility of stabilisation arrangements for particular commodities, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the International Tin Agreement took many years to achieve.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Does the Minister appreciate that the whole House shares the confusion of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about the Government's attitude to this question? Is he aware that, when it was first proposed by us as early as last October, it was turned down flat in a speech by the President of the Board of Trade, and that his speech in April added nothing except a vague reference to discussions at the Commonwealth Conference, but that, when the question was raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby), the Prime Minister promised to consider it most sympathetically? Will the hon. Gentleman now give us some action instead of all these equivocating Answers?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I still think that the Government's
    196
    policy is perfectly clear. The basic problem is a general one of maintaining a high and stable level of world demand.

    Yacht Sails (Canadian Preferential Duty)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Canadian Government to retain the preferential duty on imported British yacht sails; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Representations now would be premature. The Primary Textiles Institute of Canada has requested an increase in the British preferential duty on sails, but this request has not yet been considered by the Tariff Board.
    Mr. Harrison: Surely this is the time when representations should be made, before the matter is considered by the Tariff Board, otherwise it will be too late. If this preferential duty does go, it will make it increasingly difficult for a very fine craft industry, which is exporting quite a lot to Canada, to retain its hold on that market.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am not unsympathetic to the approach of the hon. Gentleman. The Tariff Board does hold public hearings at which all the interested parties, Canadian, British, and the others, have full opportunity to make their representations for or against changes in the present duties.

    Canned Salmon (Import)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the recent agreement between Great Britain and Japan for increased imports into Britain of Japanese salmon, indicating in particular why this agreement was made in view of the fact that there are available ample supplies of Scottish salmon.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We are increasing the import quotas for both Japanese and North American canned salmon in order that larger supplies of this popular article of diet may be available to British housewives. There is no reason to think that these increases will affect in any way the market for Scottish fresh salmon.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the British housewife and her family are exposed to grave risk by the importation of salmon from the Pacific, where bomb tests are taking place? Has the hon. Gentleman taken any steps to assure himself and the public that the salmon are not infected?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had better address a Question on that matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Post Office Savings Bank (Interest)
    Mr. du Cannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made in the rate of interest paid on Post Office Savings Bank deposits since its establishment.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): None, Sir; but since April, 1956, the first £15 of interest have been exempted from Income Tax.
    Mr. du Cann: Would not it be in accordance with modern practice and result in increasing deposits if the rate were raised? It seems very low.
    Mr. Amory: It has always been thought that it is better to keep the interest rates on Post Office savings at a constant level through periods of high and low interest rates. That has been the view of successive Governments on this particular form of saving.

    Proposed Dry Docks, Tyne
    Mr. Shortasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to make a substantial financial contribution to the two proposed dry dock projects on the Tyne; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amory: I am prepared to consider applications in respect of these projects and they will be considered on their merits. The amount of any contribution must depend on the circumstances.
    Mr. Short: While being grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Tyne is the major ship repairing centre in this country and that there is
    198
    a certain amount of unemployment now? If the shipping slump continues, that will increase. Therefore, these two projects are extremely important. Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his Budget speech, he had some new arrangement in mind or whether he envisaged assistance under the existing Distribution of Industry Act?
    Mr. Amory: This will be assistance under the existing Distribution of Industry Act if it is, as in this case, in a special area. If it is outside one of those areas, it will fall to be considered under the new Bill, which is now before the House.

    Personal Savings
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage increase in personal savings from 1946 to 1951 and from 1951 to 1957.
    Mr. Amory: Personal saving, before providing for depreciation and stock appreciation, fell by 75 per cent. between 1946 and 1948, rose by nearly 150 per cent. between 1948 and 1951, and rose by over 600 per cent. between 1951 and 1957.
    Captain Pilkington: Would my right hon. Friend like to express his great satisfaction at this sign of confidence in the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Amory: Yes. I find that very agreeable indeed, and I hope that the trend will steadily improve.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. and gallant Friend must be rather hard up for propaganda material if he is trying to draw attention to the fact that savings were inevitably low in a period just after the war, when hundreds of thousands of people were setting up homes for the first time and were also able to buy goods which were coming on to the market for the first time after the war?

    National Debt
    Mr. Slaterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the latest available figure of the National Debt and the difference of interest payable for 1957 against 1951.
    Mr. Amory: The National Debt outstanding at 31st March, 1958, was £27,232 million. The cost to the Budget Revenue in 1957–58 was £149 million higher than in 1951–52.
    Mr. Slater: Is the Chancellor aware that these figures will be of great interest to the general public? Moreover, is he aware that it is about time his Department or the Government sought to introduce forms of policy to give the benefit to the general public instead of to the bankers and moneylenders?
    Mr. Amory: No, I do not think I am aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am aware that the current higher interest rates have been one of the contributory causes of the very favourable personal savings figures.

    European Free Trade Area
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has to report in the negotiations for the establishment of a European Free Trade Area.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): We are awaiting the document which the six countries of the European Economic Community are preparing on the basis of French proposals. In the meantime useful work is proceeding on a number of important details.
    Mr. Hynd: Is not time an important factor in this matter? Since the common market began to operate at the beginning of this year and the tariff reductions will begin from 1st January next, are the Government pursuing these negotiations with a sufficient sense of urgency?
    Mr. Maudling: There is no doubt about the sense of urgency on behalf of the British Government. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's views on the urgency of the matter.

    Universities (Russian Courses)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that only about two per cent. of all science graduates in Great Britain have even a slight knowledge of Russian; and whether he will increase the facilities for teaching that language so as to provide an adequate preparation for life for scientists in modern circumstances.
    Mr. Amory: It is true that relatively few science graduates have a knowledge of Russian. The curricula of university courses are a matter for the universities. They are conscious of the need for Russian courses suitable for scientists and
    200
    I understand that an increasing number of these is being provided.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very few secondary schools have facilities for the teaching of Russian and that the New Scientist has described the present position by saying that the number of secondary schools which offer the teaching of Russian is ridiculously small? Does not that mean that scientists of standing have to spend a considerable amount of time in learning Russian to be able to cope with various publications? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to give some encouragement by giving grants, and do something about increasing the teaching of Russian so that these people will not be at a disadvantage later on?
    Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman ought to refer any questions concerning secondary schools to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. I understand that there will shortly be courses at most of the major universities and at quite a number of the technical colleges, too. The supply of teachers can expand only gradually, but the universities will make every effort to ensure that the supply of teachers is expanded and that the number of courses is expanded as far as possible to meet any increasing demand.

    Receipts (Stamps)
    Mr. du Cannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the discussions between the Inland Revenue and the Post Office regarding the amount to be paid over by the Post Office in respect of 2d. receipt stamp-duty will be completed.
    Mr. Amory: Not for some months.
    Mr. du Cann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the passing of the Cheques Act has meant that almost the only people giving stamped receipts today are the small traders doing cash business? In view of the substantial reduction in revenue from this source, the confusion that there is in the public mind and the general uncertainty of the situation, particularly with regard to tax avoidance, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be as well to abandon altogether the legal obligation to put stamps on receipts?
    Mr. Amory: I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is a broader question.

    Degree Courses (University Places)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that qualified applicants for degree courses who have so far failed to secure admission to such courses will be able to secure admission in the coming academic year, and that all new applicants who are properly qualified will also be able to secure admission.
    Mr. Amory: The announcement which I made on 20th February showed that the Government are alive to the need for a further increase in the capacity of the universities. I am confident that the university authorities will do their best to find places for those applicants they consider qualified in the coming academic year.
    Mr. MacPherson: Yes, but cannot the right hon. Gentleman realise that the announcement he made on 20th February gives a figure which it is hoped to achieve in a number of years, and that in each successive year until we achieve that figure there may be a considerable wastage, as indeed there apparently is? His Financial Secretary two Sessions ago gave a figure of roughly 2,500 people who are qualified but unable to obtain places. Therefore, is not it desirable that each Session there should be some attempt to make sure that all students who are qualified are fitted into university courses?
    Mr. Amory: Of course the hon. Gentleman knows that the capacity of the universities is steadily expanding now. The programme I announced was for a further expansion in the years ahead, but I think there is perhaps a misunderstanding about the word "qualified". It is commonly regarded that the possession of two passes at advanced level in the G.C.E. examination is a minimum qualification, but the actual standard demanded for admittance depends on the judgment of the university or institution concerned.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Professor Appleton in a Report showed that we can exclude or include people in universities by raising or lowering the standard he has referred to? Is there any sense in keeping people out of a university who are obviously qualified to benefit by
    202
    university education? If they cannot get into one course, is there any possibility of their taking, or any persuasion used to get them to take, another course and thus giving their best brains to the nation in whichever sphere they can find work?
    Mr. Amory: A student can apply to as many universities or institutions as he wishes, but the fact cannot be denied that there are more students now than there is capacity at the universities. What is true is that the capacity has been steadily expanding and the programme I announced recently provides for a considerable expansion.
    Mr. Woodburn: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his attitude seems to be that this is some privilege conferred on the students? Is not it a fact that it is the need of the nation to have the best brains developed to the utmost extent?
    Mr. Amory: I agree entirely with the last words of the right hon. Gentleman and that was the reason for the considerable expansion programme which the Government have announced.

    Redbourn Steelworks, Scunthorpe
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the future ownership of the Redbourn steelworks of Richard Thomas & Baldwin Limited at Scunthorpe.
    Mr. Amory: I understand that the Iron and Steel Agency has no present intention of separating the Redbourn works from Messrs. Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Ltd.
    Mr. Mallalieu: is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reports which have appeared in the Press to the effect that a consortium of steel magnates is about to take over this firm, and would the right hon. Gentleman think it right for this Government to approve of such an action or to persuade the reluctant steel magnates to take over this concern, Her Majesty's Government having forfeited all shred of confidence in the country?
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir, the policies of Her Majesty's Government in this matter remain in accord with the provisions of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953.

    Factory Project, Llangefni
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposal to build, out of Development Commission funds, a factory for Messrs. Cableform Limited at Llangefni.
    Mr. Amory: On 27th May last year the Treasury agreed to make a loan from the Development Fund to Welsh Agriculture and Industries, Limited to build a factory at Llangefni for occupation by Messrs. Cableform, Limited. Negotiations between W.A.I., Ltd., and Messrs. Cableform on the tenancy agreement have since been progressing and it was until recently hoped that they were on the point of completion. However, I understand that Messrs. Cable-form have found it necessary to speed up their production programme to meet their commitments; they have therefore given notice that they are no longer interested in this project and I understand that they have taken vacant premises elsewhere. I recognise the keen disappointment that this news will bring to Llangefni and I greatly hope that other projects will be developed which will help to relieve unemployment in the area.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that the breakdown in negotiations will be a profound disappointment to the people of Anglesey where unemployment, as he is aware, is running at between 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. of the insured population? Will the Chancellor consider allowing this factory to be built as an advance factory, because we are confident that in due course it would be tenanted, and that that is the only way in which to solve the problem we have to face?
    Mr. Amory: In replying to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—yes, I agree with him. I realise that this will be an acute disappointment to the local people, as indeed it is to me. As regards the last part of the supplementary question, I am afraid I could not hold out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that it would be prudent to build a factory, as it were, "on spec." The chances are that the specification of the factory would be unsuitable for an applicant unless it were known in advance the type of business which might be attracted.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman flying in the face of all experience when he says that? Is he aware that when we were in office we built factories not only in Anglesey but elsewhere in that part of the world? Also we built advance factories in many—[HON. MEMBERS: "That was just after the war."]—I agree there was no stagnation in our industry then—we built advance factories in many parts of the country and they were rapidly snapped up by industrialists, because this gave them the possibility of starting production without waiting a long time for the factories to be built. Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the delay has not only been the prospective time required for building but what seems to have been the unconscionable delay in the negotiations between the Treasury and the interests concerned?
    Mr. Amory: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the first year or two after the war were extremely abnormal ones in this respect. In reply to the second part of his supplementary question, I would say that I know of no unreasonable delay on the part of any of the authorities concerned in this case, but if the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence of any such delay, I should be grateful if he would let me know.
    Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that even in 1950 and 1951 we were building advance factories, that we let them all before they were complete, and that there was no problem about specifications? Is not the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the reason for this was that industry was expanding in this country at that time, and if he would embark on expansion now, we would have no difficulty in bringing full employment to these areas?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid I cannot share either the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on this matter or his conclusions.

  HOUSING

    Decontrolled Houses
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of known substantial increases in rents which are making it impossible for many

    205
    people to rent a home, if he will inquire into the approximate number of houses automatically decontrolled by a change of tenancy since the Rent Act became operative.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I do not think any such action is called for. There has always been a substantial number of vacancies occurring among controlled houses; the difference which the Rent Act has made is that, whereas in the past these houses were almost always sold with vacant possession to avoid control, there is now an incentive to relet them.
    Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that it is estimated that roughly one in seven, or 700,000 houses, are becoming automatically decontrolled each year as their tenants die or move to jobs elsewhere? Does not this mean that it will become almost impossible for young couples to find a house at a reasonable rent unless the Minister relents? What can they do about it?
    Mr. Brooke: The figure of 700,000 seems to be very high. The figure given during the debate on the Second Reading of the Rent Bill was 125,000. I agree that it would be easier for these young couples but for the immense damage done to the interests of the tenants by that disastrous resolution at Brighton.

    Controlled Houses (Eviction Notices)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make it an offence for a landlord to attempt intimidation by sending eviction notices to tenants of controlled houses.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The landlord of a controlled house can regain possession only by obtaining an order from the court. I have always advised tenants to make sure they know their rights, and anyone who is in doubt about the position can get information from his local authority or advice from any citizens' advice bureau. I do not think that legislation is needed.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I and other hon. Members can give him evidence that this is what certain landlords are doing? In fact, I have a notice
    206
    to quit in my pocket at the moment. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these landlords are taking advantage of their tenants' ignorance of the law, and, since there is enough injustice connected with the Rent Act already, could not the Minister quite easily prevent this additional injustice by making this a punishable offence?
    Mr. Brooke: I thought for a moment that the hon. Member was anticipating the next General Election. I say to him quite seriously that, unquestionably, making sure that the tenants have correct information about their rights is likely to be more effective than any legislation against intimidation.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is not it a fact that this practice causes confusion between houses which remain controlled and those which have been decontrolled under the provisions of the Rent Act? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider dealing with this matter in the booklet which I believe he is to issue in connection with the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the booklet had better be confined to the new Measure. I would have thought that there was sufficiently clear information already available to everybody. If this interchange of Question and Answer draws further attention to it, so much the better.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Trunk Roads (Lighting Schemes)
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will consider using his powers, or taking powers, to pay for street lighting on trunk roads from central funds, thus relieving parishes of financial obligations which are beyond their means.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, already has powers to pay grants on approved lighting schemes on trunk roads. My hon. Friend will realise that parish councils' lighting powers are permissive and not obligatory.
    Sir I. Fraser: Yes, Sir, but is not it a fact that a parish council is a small and poor local government unit, that it is really only capable of lighting village streets, and that, when it is required to light on the standard of a main road, it should have much more help from the central Government in the national interest?
    Mr. Bevins: That may be, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Mayoresses, Scunthorpe (Badges)
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieuasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what grounds he has refused to sanction expenditure by the Scunthorpe Borough Council on small badges to be offered to each mayoress in recognition of her services to the citizens.
    Mr. H. Brooke: There is no statutory authority for expenditure of this kind, and sanction was asked under Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933. As the office of Mayoress has no status in law, it was thought that sanction ought not to be given. However, I am prepared to reconsider this, and to sanction the expenditure provided that it is nonrecurring, as it will be if the badges are bought in bulk.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will give considerable satisfaction, because so many of the mayors' ladies have given their devoted services to the citizens of the area, and it would involve only a few shillings of expenditure in each case?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that it will give satisfaction, and that was one of the reasons why I decided to reconsider the matter.

    Spoilbanks and Refuse Tips (Fumes)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent the fumes given off by burning colliery spoil and refuse in tips are injurious to health; and what recent advice he has given to local authorities in regard to dealing with this nuisance.
    Mr. Bevins: These fumes can be unpleasant, and in certain circumstances they might be injurious to health. Section 18
    208
    of the Clean Air Act requires the use of all practicable means to prevent or minimise the emission of smoke and fumes from spoilbanks. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing this requirement, but my right hon. Friend has offered them the technical assistance of his alkali inspectors should they need it.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that usually the advice or technical assistance that is given is to spray these tips? Is he also aware that there is, in fact, a tip in my constituency which has been sprayed for eight years without effect? Cannot the alkali inspectors look into this matter to see if they can persuade local authorities to use some methods that are more effective?
    Mr. Bevins: I do not know whether, in the case to which my hon. Friend refers, the services of the alkali inspectors have been brought in, but I will discuss that with them.
    Mr. Mitchison: Has the Ministry got enough alkali inspectors?
    Mr. Bevies: Yes.

    Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations he has received from the Uxbridge Borough Council and other local authorities about the hardness of water supplied by the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company, and the refusal of this company to discuss the problem with the local authorities concerned; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend has had letters from the Uxbridge Borough Council and the Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District Council, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of his reply. The matters at issue are primarily for the company, but it is only fair to say that my right hon. Friend understands that the water it supplies is not exceptionally hard. In present financial conditions he could not give his encouragement to the company incurring heavy expenditure on the installation of softening plant.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend believe that this company's action in refusing to discuss the matter with the local authorities concerned is very high-handed and is to be deprecated? Could he encourage, or use his influence with, the company concerned at least to get it to listen to the local authorities and discuss the matter with them?
    Mr. Bevins: I do not know whether there was any refusal to discuss the matter. If that is the case, I will certainly do what I can to help the councils. I understand that there was general agreement between the local government bodies and the company that the latter would not be pressed to install a water softening plant.

    Public House and Community Centre, Hatfield
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has yet made a decision concerning the erection at Hatfield new town of a public house and community centre provided under the same roof by a firm of brewers; and whether he will require that there be no connecting door or hatchway between the one and the other and that no proprietary registered club shall be permitted in the community centre.
    Mr. Bevins: A public local inquiry is to be held into this proposal, and my right hon. Friend's decision will be announced after he has studied the report of the Inspector. I cannot anticipate that decision by commenting now on the second and third parts of the Question.
    Mr. Hastings: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that children seem to be attracted to the new towns, and also that in the new towns there is a scarcity of places of public concourse? Will he take special care that those that do exist do not become drinking dens?
    Mr. Bevins: Yes, most certainly. I would rather not comment on this proposal at the moment, because there is to be a public inquiry, but from what I know of it, I applaud the motive behind it.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

    Racial Relations
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will introduce legislation in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to make it a punishable offence to show racial or ethnic aversion or hatred, or to commit an act which is calculated to provoke such aversion or hatred.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): No, Sir; I share the hon. Member's dislike for all behaviour showing racial aversion or hatred. The existing provisions of the Penal Code in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland cater for the grosser forms of such misbehaviour; and in Northern Rhodesia the Racial Relations Committees have now been established. Legislation is, of course, primarily for the Governments concerned to consider. In any case, there are limits to the efficacy of legislation in this matter.
    Mrs. Castle: Does the Colonial Secretary agree, as I know he does, that the colour bar in any form is incompatible with the concept of partnership? Is he aware that the Africans in the Protectorate referred to in the Question are aware that, over the border in the Belgian Congo, a decree, outlined in my Question, was published by the Belgian Government last December? Would not it do a great deal to launch the Federation on a proper basis if the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were to follow the suit of the Belgian Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have looked at that decree, and I doubt very much whether it differs in purpose or effect from the provisions of the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

    Cost of Living
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the cost of living has risen in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia since 1953; and to what extent he estimates that this is due to an increase in customs duties and the removal of subsidies, respectively, by the Federal Government.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The cost of living for Europeans in Northern Rhodesia has risen by 17·3 per cent. since 1953. Figures are not available for Africans or generally for Nyasaland. There has been little increase in prices due to the removal of subsidies or increases in duties in Northern Rhodesia and none in Nyasaland.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not it a fact that there has been a whole series of measures resulting in an increase in the cost of living, such as increased postal charges as well as increases in customs duties and the removal of subsidies? Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give an exact estimate of the effect which this has had on African standards, because there is a widespread belief inside the Territory that this has helped to remove from the Africans some of the economic benefits supposed to come from Federation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the hon. Lady will do her best to dispel any such erroneous belief. Of the increase in the cost of living of 17·3 per cent., only 2·3 per cent. is due to increased duties on imported foodstuffs. As for her remarks about the removal of subsidies, there were no subsidies to remove.

    British Protected Persons (Passports)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an assurance that he will not surrender his power to control the issue of passports for British protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and therefore the right of hon. Members of this House to raise any question arising out of the issue of those passports.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Federal Constitution provides for discussions between the Governments of the Federation and of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland on matters of common concern. Since the Federation Government have raised certain questions relating to the issue of passports to British protected persons, it has been agreed that this matter should be discussed shortly between the three Governments concerned in accordance with the terms of the Constitution.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not this Answer extremely alarming, and does not it contradict the Answer given by the Minister
    212
    to me a short while ago on a similar question? Is it a fact that these British protected persons are to remain under the safeguards of the Colonial Secretary and this House, and should not the answer to my Question have been an automatic and emphatic "Yes"? Will not the Colonial Secretary's reply cause widespread alarm amongst Africans in the Federation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My reply means nothing more than I have said. This matter is to be discussed and points of view are being put forward.
    Mr. Callaghan: Although that is so, may we ask the Colonial Secretary what advice he proposes to give to the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, for whom, presumably, he is responsible in matters of policy? Will he bear in mind that if there was any proposal that the issue of passports should be taken over by the Federal Government, it would create widespread alarm among, I suppose, the overwhelming proportion of Africans in these two Territories, who value their British connections above everything else?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to the first part of that supplementary question. I do not think it would help if I said at this stage what advice I am giving to the Governors. With regard to the second part, the point which the hon. Gentleman has put forward is clearly a very relevant one.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the Colonial Secretary give an undertaking that this matter will not be taken out of the hands of the two Northern Governments, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, without the Colonial Secretary giving the House an opportunity to express its views about it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will consider that.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Palace of Westminster (Liftmen)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that some of the disabled ex-Service men employed by him as liftmen in the Palace of Westminster are experiencing difficulty in getting home after late sittings during the bus strike; and what arrangements he is making to enable them to do so.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harman Nicholls): My right hon. Friend has agreed with the authorities of the House that only one lift need be manned after 11 o'clock when the House sits late. He has also made arrangements for the attendant on this lift to be taken home when necessary.
    Mr. E. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give great satisfaction to the whole House and to the disabled men themselves?

  SCOTLAND

    Atomic Energy Scheme, Crimond
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the contribution which the atomic energy scheme at Crimond will make towards the reduction of unemployment in north-east Scotland; what progress has been made with it; and if he will expedite its completion.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I am aware that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is considering the suitability of various sites for a nuclear generating station should one be required in its area. Test borings have been carried out at Crimond and the Board is examining the results but has not yet submitted any proposals to me on this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Secretary of State say whether he has received representations from the Aberdeen Trades Council on this subject indicating that it would reduce unemployment? If so, what reply has he sent as to when the work will begin; how many workers will be employed there, and what provision is being made for their accommodation?
    Mr. Maclay: The position is, as the hon. and learned Member realises, that this whole proposal is in an early stage of examination and I cannot commit myself about dates or anything else.

    Lung Cancer (Deaths)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of deaths from lung cancer in each of the last eight years; and whether the increase is greater or less than that for Western Europe as a whole, as published
    214
    in the recent Report of the World Health Organisation.
    Mr. Maclay: As the Answer contains a number of figures I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The figures for the past eight years in Scotland are:

    1950

    …

    …

    1,183

    1951

    …

    …

    1,366

    1952

    …

    …

    1,472

    1953

    …

    …

    1,766

    1954

    …

    …

    1,809

    1955

    …

    …

    1,801

    1956

    …

    …

    1,982

    1957 (Provisional)

    …

    …

    2,081

    The percentage increase in the death rate from lung cancer in Scotland in 1955 over the death rate in 1950 is lower than the comparable increases in the other five countries of Western Europe for which figures for these years are given in the World Health Organisation Report. The death rate in 1955 in Scotland was, however, higher than the rates of those other countries, with the exception of England and Wales.

    Hospitals, Glasgow (Maternity Beds)
    Mrs. McAlisterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of hospital beds for maternity cases in Glasgow, a matter which, on account of the unsatisfactory housing conditions still obtaining in many districts, is causing concern to those responsible for the conduct of maternity and child welfare services in the City; and if he will undertake to ensure that a fair proportion of the beds which are no longer required for the treatment of tuberculosis will be allocated for this purpose.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. This matter has recently been discussed between my Department, Glasgow Corporation and the Western Regional Hospital Board, and I am now considering it further in consultation with the Board which is already preparing proposals for a substantial increase in the number of maternity beds in Glasgow. On the future of tuberculosis beds, I have already undertaken, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) on 6th May, to make a comprehensive statement.
    Mrs. McAlister: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that this matter of beds for maternity cases is one of extreme urgency, since the infant mortality figures for Glasgow, although dramatically reduced in the last twenty years, are still about twice the national average?
    Mr. Maclay: I assure the hon. Lady that I share her concern in this matter. We are pressing on with it.
    Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Answer given by the Joint Under-Secretary to my Question last week, that some of these hospitals may go on a care and maintenance basis, has caused great distress in Scotland? In making his review, will he ensure that every single hospital is used for purposes such as those suggested by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Maclay: I must ask the hon. Lady to await my comprehensive statement, since to deal with the matter piecemeal would be very unwise.

    DEFENCE POLICY (CONFERENCE)
    Mr. Wiggasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Chief of the Air Staff, together with other members of the Air Council, have publicly criticised the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government at a conference arranged by the Air Council in London on Tuesday, 6th May; and, in view of public concern, if he will redefine the limits of responsibility between the Ministry of Defence and the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the constitutional issues which have arisen from senior officers of the Forces making public statements contrary to Government defence policy; and what action he is taking in this matter.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will redefine the extent to which the Minister of Defence is now responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the Air Ministry with those of the other Service Departments.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister to what extent serving officers
    216
    are permitted to express in public their opinions on the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the continuing public controversy between the Minister of Defence and members of the Air Council as to the future of manned military aircraft is having an unsettling effect on the Royal Air Force and the aircraft industry; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. G. Brownasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Royal Air Force Conference Prospect which was held on Tuesday, 6th May, 1958.
    Mr. Shortasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to see that all Government Departments follow the technique of public relations used by the Royal Air Force in Conference Prospect.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): This was by no means the first conference of its kind to be held by one of the Services. Its purpose was to expound to a widely representative audience some of the problems which the Royal Air Force sees ahead—many of them a considerable way ahead—and to ventilate for discussion the various possible solutions to which thought is being given. I am assured that nothing that was said at the conference conflicted with the Government's declared defence policy.
    As regards the responsibilities of the Minister of Defence I would refer hon. Members to what I said on Thursday last.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a careful perusal of the hand-outs and Press reports reveals that the wisdom of holding these conferences can be called into question?
    Is he also aware that there is no doubt that these distinguished officers, as they said, are very greatly concerned about the future of their Service and about the confusion in the public mind? Is he aware that the fact that this confusion exists can be ascribed only to the failure of the Government—and perhaps even to the House of Commons—to explain to the country the implications of the last two Defence White Papers?

    217
    If the right hon. Gentleman himself has looked at these Papers, does not he share the concern of these distinguished officers about the implications of the Government's defence policy, which might result in the country facing humiliating diplomatic or military defeat?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has asked a good many supplementary questions. So far as I can recall them, I will do my best to answer them. He asked whether this kind of conference was wise. There are many reputable precedents for conferences of this kind, including in particular one held by Lord Tedder in 1949, and named Ariel. There are many arguments for and against having rather wider discussion and knowledge among the public and the Press. Some people might feel that it is better to keep all this completely secret; but, on the whole, although these experiments should be carefully watched, it is an advantage for these various conferences to have free and frank discussion of some of these difficult and in many cases distant problems.
    With regard to the deductions drawn from some of the facts in both the Press and elsewhere, I have done my best, while having a good many other problems with which to deal, to read as carefully as I could all the records with which I have been provided. I want to call the attention of the House particularly to some of the points mainly criticised. I think that the premise upon which these speculations were based is not well understood. The Assistant Chief of Air Staff explained that he was considering a situation which might arise or would arise if a defence to the ballistic rocket were found; in other words, if science so progressed in the future that a defence to this form of weapon, against which there is no defence, so far as we now know, were found. This weapon would then be made of less importance and some new scientific device might reduce or take away its paramount or ultimate power.
    If that should happen, he said, all questions of bombers and manned aircraft and all that would have to be reconsidered. I hope that the House and the country will understand that all this speculation was based on a premise which we have no reason at present to believe
    218
    is likely to arise—certainly not in the near future.
    Mr. G. Brown: As one of those who was there, may I ask the Prime Minister to accept from me that anybody there would find it very difficult to visualise that meeting being based wholly on the premise which the Prime Minister now puts forward? Has his attention been drawn to the fact that the first half of the morning session was wholly a political discussion on the philosophy of the rightness or wrongness of the nuclear deterrent, a discussion in which serving officers impersonated Members of Parliament and reproduced debates which had taken place here? May I say in justice to hon. Members opposite that their case was not as well presented as they have presented it. Does the Prime Minister feel that it is the function of a Service Department to provide an occasion for the reproduction of a political debate, or does he think that that ought to be done by us in Parliament?
    Secondly; is he aware that the second half of the morning session was the half concerned with the discussion of Government policy for more or fewer manned bombers and fighters? Does the Prime Minister—assuming that it is his view that there ought to be discussion of Government decisions in this matter—feel that it is right for one Service Department to provide an occasion to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Government's decisions on manned and unmanned aircraft?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I can only quote from the script with which I have been provided. The Assistant Chief of the Air Staff explained that he was considering the situation if a defence was found to the ballistic rocket. He said:
    "It is obviously impossible for me to say here and now precisely what the answer will be."
    that is to say, if the ballistic rocket is found not, as we now believe to be the case, to be a weapon against which there is not a defence, but a weapon against which a defence could be devised. He went on to say:
    "I suggest we will need what will amount to a second generation of these manned and unmanned weapons and they will continue to be complementary one to the other. This is not to say that we cling to the idea that we

    219
    need a bigger and better bomber. That would be a reversal of decisions already taken and is not our intention. A manned vehicle, that is something retaining discretion, and not tied to large and vulnerable airfields … may be the answer."
    I repeat that all this was based on what would be, or should be, the right reply if this situation should develop; that is to say, if a defence which nobody now believes is possible were found to the ballistic rocket.
    In regard to the second part of the right hon. Member's supplementary question, as to the propriety or wisdom of this kind of sketch, if I may call it that, opinions may vary, but I think we must not take too harsh a view of these arrangements. I think that hon. Members who were there probably felt that it added in a dramatic way to the discussion of an important question.
    Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole question of inspired Press leaks and adverse public comments by officers of the Forces is denigrating the status not only of Ministers and the Government, but of the whole House? If a civil servant had made comments of this kind publicly would not demotion have followed? Is not the course now clearly open to the Prime Minister to do exactly the same to these chaps?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think it is a matter for discussion—certainly this particular matter will require consideration—how far this kind of exercise, which was only one in a considerable series, is wise or unwise. On the other hand, I have often heard it argued that these things are kept secret too much and that the public and the Press are not sufficiently brought into these matters. I do not think we ought to come to a too hasty conclusion on the principle.
    Whether it was well carried out is another matter. Whether there is a general feeling that exercises of this kind are not good for the public and relations with the public we shall have to consider. As I say, it is not novel; this was one of a series. On the whole, although this was not the custom, certainly, when I first came to the House, it is felt that there ought to be closer association between the Services and the public.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Prime Minister look at my Question No. 51? Is not the fact that there is this public controversy between the Minister of Defence and the Air Council due to the over-optimistic appreciation by the Minister of Defence of the state of development of missiles? Will not the Minister follow his retreat over Fighter Command by abandoning the project of the Thor missile in particular, which is widely regarded as obsolete?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The whole point was on the assumption that the rocket would be found by some scientific modern devices to be something which might be destroyed before it could reach its target. If that is the argument, we have to consider what would be done in the bomber and fighter fields. It would create a new, element. The Assistant Chief of the Air Staff went on to say:
    "It is the manned fighter which provides the most difficult conundrum. As you all know, a year ago it was officially announced that we would not develop another fighter. Circumstances change very rapidly though, and if we do find a reliable defence against the ballistic missile, we could easily have a changed threat which would call for a long-range fighter designed to intercept, identify, and destroy beyond the practical range of surface-to-air guided weapons."
    There again, it was governed by the premise that the ballistic rocket, against which at present, as far as I know, there is no possible defence, should be found to be a weapon which is not the ultimate weapon, but only one against which normal defensive weapons could be devised in future. He said that if that happens, some of these considerations will have to change.
    Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister quoting from a document which is not before the House? Should not the House be in possession of the whole of that document?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the document is. I do not think it is a State paper but a script.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will not the Prime Minister agree that as a result of these Questions the House has been informed of several matters affecting the defence position about which hon. Members hitherto have not had any information? Can he say if the purpose of this conference was to furnish information on the

    221
    air aspect of defence? Would not it be desirable that a wider audience might have been informed? Could he arrange that in future, if information of this character, or discussions of this kind, are to be continued, we might have the Central Hall, the Royal Albert Hall, Westminster Hall or even the House of Commons for the purpose? In any event, why cannot it be done through the medium of the Minister of Defence?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think the narrowness of the circles in which these discussions were held was really one of the most embarrassing parts of the matter.
    Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is more than one opinion about this question? I was present at the conference and I think I heard every word of it. In my honest opinion, there was not a single word said which was either in conflict with the White Paper on Defence, or the Memorandum on the Air Estimates. Does not the Prime Minister agree that nowadays in discussing defence it is quite impossible to separate political and strategic considerations? Does he not think it would be a good thing if more Government Departments were to arrange such meetings to explain what they are doing and how they are spending the taxpayers' money?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's intervention makes me feel glad that I have not reached a decision because, clearly, there are balancing arguments as to whether these forms of discussion are on the whole good or bad. It is very interesting to have his testimony, as I understand he was present there.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the Prime Minister agree, after studying these texts, that the conference was very clearly told that a defence against the ballistic missile would be found, and that, from that point onwards, the point of view presented in the playlets was the purely Departmental one in favour of manned aircraft, fighters and bombers, which may be right or wrong? Does he really think the presentation of a purely Departmental point of view at such conferences is desirable? If so, does he think, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), that this should be done by all other Government Departments, and that, for instance, the Treasury should put on a little play in
    222
    favour of inflation and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should put on a little play in favour of higher rents?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps this matter can be further discussed when the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of discussing it with his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short). In regard to the technical side of the question—not the last part, which was very good merriment—I understand the position to be that it was said that throughout history, normally with every great weapon of offence, in time it is likely that some defence against it can be devised. That might happen. There is no sign of it at present. It is a long way ahead. It is a very big scientific question. If that should happen, then the premise upon which some of these decisions were taken no longer stands and the decisions will have to be reconsidered. It seems a very sensible point of view.
    Sir N. Hulbert: Does the Prime Minister realise that hon. Members on the Government Benches were very appreciative of the invitation of the Air Council to attend this conference, which we found was most instructive? Does he also realise that we very much resent the futile endeavours of the Opposition to make party capital out of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Furthermore, and reverting to my right hon. Friend's original Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that it would be quite impossible for any Royal Air Force officer to impersonate members of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: All this goes to show to me how very good it is to collect evidence when different people who attended this demonstration take such diametrically opposed views about its value, and indeed about what happened there.
    Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that it is clear that the Minister of Defence has not effective political control over his Service Chiefs of Staff? That is an important point that is worrying us here. If the Minister of Defence is not capable of giving effective political guidance to his Chiefs of Staff, has not the time come for him to join the serried ranks of ex-Ministers of Defence?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have heard some criticisms of my right hon. Friend, but I have not heard the criticism that he is of weak character and not in control of the Service Chiefs of Staff.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister arrange either for the publication of the record of this conference or that it should at least be placed in the Library and be made available to hon. Members? Further, does he appreciate that what is really at issue here is the constitutional point, on which I should think there would be no difference of opinion in the House, whether it is appropriate for a Service Department to conduct a conference of this kind which has given the widespread impression that it was designed to present a purely Departmental view and not necessarily the point of view of the Government themselves? Would not it be most undesirable if there grew up in this country a custom, which is not unknown in the United States, of different defence Departments each putting its own point of view independently before the public?
    The Prime Minister: I will consider the first part of that Question but I doubt whether there is a record actually of this kind, a verbal record. I have certain scripts which I got from what was said. I will consider that point. I have such an enormous list of people—from the House of Commons, the House of Lords, other Government Departments such as the Admiralty and the Ministry of Defence—that all kinds of people seem to have been there, and there must be a fairly wide knowledge of what took place, although different impressions were no doubt made on different people, as we have heard today. With regard to the constitutional point, it would be a mistake to exaggerate this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When a Government have decided—I have seen something of it both in war and in peace and it applies to any Government—that a difficult decision has to be taken on defence policy, I have always found that the heads of the Services are the most loyal servants of the country and of any Government that is in office.
    Mr. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Defence was aware of the calling of this
    224
    conference and whether he gave his consent? Was he aware of those who were invited to attend?
    The Prime Minister: The Minister of Defence was aware of it. Unfortunately, both he and the Secretary of State for War were invited but were not able to attend.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister answer the second part of my Question? I understand that the Minister of Defence was aware of it; did he give his consent?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend informs me that he was both aware of it and raised no objection to it, and in that sense gave his consent.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Did he know what was to be said?
    The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what is going to be said in Brighton?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Prime Minister aware that that kind of silly retort—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is no substitute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—for answering a serious Question on an issue of constitutional importance which even some of his supporters ought to take a little more seriously?
    The Prime Minister: Even with the troubles of the whole world, I think it is wise to temper solemnity with a little amusement.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Question No. 55 which is in my name and which asks whether this conference gained the Government's consent before it took place? Why do the Prime Minister and other Ministers jump the gun?
    Mr. Speaker: I notice that the time is after half-past Three and I cannot allow more Questions. I ought to allow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Defence is now writing a play in which

    225
    he analyses this as a Communist plot? Could the Prime Minister assure us that if the demand of the Air Ministry leads to inflation he will oppose the air marshals with the same tenacity as he is opposing the busmen?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not ask Question No. 44. I do not know why he passed it by. Perhaps he was saving up this supplementary question. If so, he took a long time to think of it and a long time to put it.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Arising out of these questions and answers, may I ask a supplementary question on a matter which concerns you, as Mr. Speaker, in your function of safeguarding the rights of back benchers? From the list of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were invited to this conference, it is obvious that no hon. Member on either side of the House whose views are not acceptable to both Front Benches was invited? It is a matter of comment that there are on those benches two ex-Ministers of Defence, three ex-Secretaries of State for Air and there is my hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not invite anybody to the conference. I had no knowledge that it was about to take place. I can deal only with points of order, and that is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that you did not invite them. If you had done so, the list would have been a bit more fair. I am asking that in future when conferences of this kind take place to which hon. Members from both sides of the House are invited the list shall be drawn up and approved by you and not by the interests of both Front Benches.
    Sir N. Hulbert: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not it obviate difficulties in the future if you yourself attended and then reported impartially to this House?
    Mr. Speaker: I am willing to undertake to the best of my ability any duties which the House places on me, but I hope they will not include that last suggestion.

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT SUPPORT)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Sir P. MACDONALD: To ask the Minister of Supply whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the Government's future policy for research and development in the aeronautical industry.
The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): With permission, Sir I will now answer Question No. 59.
Yes, Sir. As the House will be aware the Government have had under consideration, in the light of current defence policy, the future of the British aircraft industry and, in particular, the future extent of Government support for that industry.
Like the aircraft industries of other countries, the British industry, as an important defence industry, has from its early days been supported by work done in Government establishments and has developed with the help of Government contracts for research, development and production. The current reduction in defence demands, both in numbers and for certain types of manned combat aircraft, will inevitably entail some contraction in the present size of the British industry, but there will still be a need for an efficient and economic industry to meet the Services' requirements for aircraft and guided weapons. The Government will, therefore, continue, as necessary, to sponsor and finance aeronautical research and development to meet these defence requirements.
In addition to its defence rôle, the aircraft industry has been making a valuable contribution to the general economy of the country and to technological progress over a wide field of industry. It has been helped materially in this by the research work undertaken under Government auspices primarily for defence purposes. So long as the achievements of the industry justify the expenditure of the public money involved, the Government intend to continue to make a financial contribution to aeronautical research in the expanding field of civil transport, where this is not already covered by the research

227
necessary for defence purposes; such finance will be on a scale adequate to enable the industry to maintain a leading position.
The Government have taken this decision in the expectation that in course of time the industry itself will progressively assume financial liability for this research. In the Government's view, however, it would be fruitless to continue this expenditure unless the industry reorganises and strengthens itself to the extent necessary to meet the changed conditions with which it is now faced. The future of research depends, therefore, on the progress made by the industry itself.
In the case of civil development, the industry has already accepted responsibility for most of the development costs of the new major civil aircraft projects. The Government consider that, provided the necessary reorganisation is carried out, the industry should, in general, be able increasingly to finance the development of new civil projects without Government assistance. It is, however, recognised that the development of a future generation of aircraft may require a measure of Government help. The Government will, therefore, be prepared to consider individual applications for development assistance on their merits.
Other factors which affect the future of the aircraft industry are being kept under review.
Sir P. Macdonald: Arising out of that very important statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say what are the intentions of the Government with regard to a supersonic civil aircraft? Does his statement mean that the Government are to contribute towards the development of supersonic civil aircraft in the future? May I also ask what is to be the future of the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough? Is it to be maintained by the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Who will be responsible for it?
Mr. Jones: Research is being undertaken into the possibility of a supersonic civil transport. Were the research to develop to a point where a design was chosen and an aircraft manufacturing firm were to develop such a project, the Government, recognising that the finances involved might well be beyond the capacity of the firm, would consider on its
228
merits, and in the light of circumstances then obtaining, the possibility of a Government contribution.
Naturally, Farnborough will continue. It will continue to do research work for military and civil aircraft, for manned and unmanned aircraft and research into subsonic as well as supersonic flight.
Mr. G. Brown: This is, of course, a very important but also an excessively vague statement. Incidentally, may I express the hope that it was cleared by the Chiefs of Air Staff before the Minister made it.
I wish to ask two short questions. There are many references to existing subsidies and to new subsidies, both to the industry as a whole and on the application of individual firms. Will the Minister give an estimate of the amount by which we shall be committed, under this statement, to pay new subsidies to the aircraft industry? Does he know how much a year is involved?
What machinery is the Minister setting up to enable the industry to expand to Government requirements in the civil as well as the military field, and also to enable him to exercise his powers in relation to the industry to which he is offering these new subsidies if the industry does not reorganise itself? Or are we leaving ourselves with an almost bottomless purse and without control over a private enterprise industry to which we are giving all this money?
Mr. Jones: I will endeavour to clarify the vagueness of the right hon. Gentleman. The word "subsidy" is misplaced. The aircraft industry is an example par excellence of defence work being of inestimable value to the civil side. The civil and military techniques are beginning to diverge. My statement made clear that as such divergence continues the responsibility for the financial cost of civil research will be placed in the course of time where it belongs, on the industry itself.
I am always in touch with industry and I endeavour as soon as possible to inform it of coming requirements.
Mr. Brown: How much will it cost?
Mr. Jones: The broad intention of the Government is not to introduce new subsidies at all, but to continue aeronautical research on about the present scale.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement gives the impression that there is to be a change in the policy whereby, as in the case of the Brabazon Committee, a scientific appreciation of the future needs of aircraft for the whole country was the guide for the industry? Is he aware that his statement would make it appear that he is leaving the future of aircraft to the inspiration of the industry? Do his scientific advisers think that this is right? Would it not be better to continue the policy which was proved so successful in the past and which put us in the forefront of the world?
Mr. Jones: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a wrong inference. My statement implies that Government establishments and the industry will continue to co-operate in determining new requirements.
Mr. McKibbin: In any arrangements being made will my right hon. Friend see that Messrs. Short and Harlands is retained as an effective unit of the British aircraft industry, and allowed to make its own design and to carry out its own manufacture? Is he aware that yesterday 1,100 men were given notice that they would be paid off before the end of the year, owing to the cessation of the Canberra contract?
Mr. Jones: I have the future of Messrs. Short and Harlands very much in mind—after all, I am a majority shareholder. But I do not think that my hon. Friend should blind himself to the fact that some contraction in the aircraft industry is inevitable.
Mr. Beswick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he cannot put any figure to the research programme for the next few years the conclusion will be drawn that he has no idea of the size of the industry for which we are planning? Is he seriously telling the House that, the cost of basic research in aeronautics being what it is today, it will be possible to fragment this research and farm it out to separate firms? Is it not absolutely essential to have centralised research, and, if it is being done at cost to the State, can he isolate that question from the question of the ownership of the aircraft industry as a whole?
Mr. Jones: The intention of my statement is to indicate to the House that the
230
level of research expenditure will continue unchanged. I cannot give the House precise figures, for to do so would be in breach of security. The two things—civil and military—are inextricably intertwined. As to the hon. Member's concluding question, I should have thought that this speculative and risky export industry—the most speculative there is—was the worst possible candidate for nationalisation.
Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman, maybe unintentionally, has not been sufficiently frank with the House? Has he not said today that in the event of research for defence purposes proving inadequate for civil development, the Government will find civil research facilities? Has he formed any estimate of what that will cost? How can he say that he does not regard it as a subsidy? If the research is undertaken on Government account for commercial aircraft, what other description can be found for it except that it is a subsidy? Have the Government made any estimate of what it will mean?
It is not also a fact that in his statement he said that in the event of an individual aircraft project being undertaken and a private firm not being able to carry the whole burden, the Government will themselves step in and help? Has he formed any estimate of what that will cost? Has he not, maybe unconsciously but by using very unfelicitous language, concealed the real burden from the House?
Mr. Jones: I endeavour to be as frank with the House as I can. I am trying to say that both military and civil research have been one whole and have been done together. The demand for military aircraft is subsiding. It is impracticable to pass over the whole of civil research, even if we could disentangle it, to the industry straight away. The Government therefore propose to continue research as a whole for the time being at roughly the existing level. As civil research becomes more and more identifiable, then the cost of that research will be passed in course of time on to the industry itself, although the actual execution of the research may well still be done in a Government establishment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the cost?"] I have said that the broad scope of the

231
research and the broad level of expenditure remains for the time being about as it is now. I cannot give a figure, because to do so would be to conflict with security considerations.
Sir J. Hutchison: Would my right hon. Friend say what, if any, assistance, presumably under the policy of interdependence, is being given by the United States, as stated in the Press the other day? Is that entirely a private arrangement between firms, or does it enter into the Government's calculations?
Mr. Jones: I think that my hon. Friend may possibly have in mind the Swallow aircraft, which has been mentioned in one or two newspapers lately. I understand that the Americans, as they normally do, are considering the possibility of giving some financial aid for such a project, but there is no decision.
Mr. G. Brown: What arrangements is the Minister envisaging, when grants are made to individual firms under the new policy, to obtain a repayment out of the specific earnings to which those facilities may lead? What call-back will the Government have and what machinery exists for it? Does he know of any other industry which, justifiably or unjustifiably, gets a subsidy to which no figure is ever placed?
Mr. Jones: Again, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading in using the word "grant". There are no grants. The practice has been for the Government to contribute towards the development of a civil aircraft and there-
232
after to exact a levy on the sales of the aircraft. In the case of the Viscount aircraft, for example, if it is not too unethical to say so, the Government did quite generously on the investment.
What I am trying to say about normal aircraft is that that investment—because it is an investment—on the part of the Government will cease. When it comes to future aircraft embodying a great technological advance, the Government will consider the possibility of some help on its merits and in the light of the circumstances of the case.
Sir P. Macdonald: In view of the vitally important statement that he has made, would my right hon. Friend consider issuing a White Paper explaining what these proposals are? May I ask the Leader of the House, who is now leaving the Chamber, for an opportunity for a debate on this subject, which will affect not only the aircraft industry but the engineering industry as a whole?
Mr. Jones: The question of a debate is a matter for the usual channels, but if my hon. Friend wishes further clarification of what I have said, the advice which I would give him is to put down a Question to me for Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Christmas Island Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath].

PROTECTION OF OCCUPIERS
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner; I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the widow of a person dying intestate or other member of his family residing with him in a dwellinghouse at the lime of his death, to retain possession of that dwelling-house where that person had become a tenant of the dwelling-house by virtue of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restriction) Act, 1920.
This is a matter of considerable importance to those at present under the fear of eviction in consequence of the prevailing conditions. During the last thirty-eight years the Section of the 1920 Act to which I refer in the Motion, has been in force, and it has enabled the widow of a deceased person and, if there is no widow, another member of the family to remain in possession of the home of that family on the death of the person who was the statutory tenant at that time.
I venture to say that fear stalks in many homes in this land today, that people are agitated and frightened about their future and that anything which can be done to alleviate that terrible anxiety should be done as speedily as possible. As I have said on a number of occasions here, the home of a family is of considerable value to it, and that was why, about thirty-eight years ago, that proviso was inserted into the Act whereby the definition of a tenant included persons who survived that tenant and who had been living in the family of that tenant at the time of his death.
The tragedy is that as the years have gone on, many of those who were the first survivors of the statutory tenant have themselves died, leaving the family with no protection, except one. There is a big distinction between the position that prevailed before the 1957 Act and that which prevails today, and that is why I have introduced this Motion. I have done it on previous occasions in respect of the old Acts, but the situation is even more difficult today for the family because of the provisions of the 1957 Act.
The difference is that when a person who was not a member of the family tenanted a house after the death of a husband or mother who had become a tenant by virtue of the Section I have
234
referred to, the landlord was not in a position to charge more for the house in rent, because it remained controlled. Consequently, although there was already a great hardship, some families were protected as if the landlord was unable to sell the house. He could not let it at a higher rent nor could he evict a subsequent tenant.
That is very different from the present position, resulting from the 1957 Act, which provides automatic decontrol. The only thing which is decontrolled is the current tenancy. When the tenant leaves the house—this is not known by most people and it applies whether the house is above or below the rateable value of £40 in London and £30 in the provinces—the rent which can then be charged is that of a decontrolled house.
Even if a member of a family is living with a tenant and has been doing so for many years, when the tenant dies—unless that person is the first successor—he is not protected himself and the house becomes unprotected. That is a serious situation. I am sure that every hon. Member has had the question put to him at one time or another. It is not a matter of party politics. Any hon. Member who has been in the House for any length of time must have received communications from constituents such as. "What shall I do? My mother has died and I no longer have protection."
It is not only a question of houseless-ness, but a question of homelessness, particularly where a family has built up its existence within the walls of one house. It is extremely difficult for that family and is certainly not in the social interests of the country that the family should be spread all over the place and should regard itself as many different units. Only a day or so ago a case was brought to my notice in which a daughter had been living in a house for many years, attending her ailing mother. When her mother died, recently, this woman had no protection whatever over the home which had been hers, in which her parents had built a family life and in which every stick and stone meant something to her.
The result is that this woman has to leave. She has not only to seek a new life, but she has to seek a new life in a new home atmosphere, because her home goes as well as the house. Surely nobody wants that situation. I therefore appeal

235
to the Minister to think again about this matter. Perhaps, with the full approval of the Government, he himself will take action to introduce a Bill to deal with this very tragic situation.
I have said that the Acts have been in existence for about forty years, and that the situation has become increasingly difficult. The House will remember that the only person who could take over the tenancy was the widow of the original owner or a member of the family living there. In many cases the tenant died and then, within a few days or months, his widow died. The result was that the tenancy was no longer in existence. Obviously, this is now becoming a matter of everyday concern. The House should be made aware of the fact that this is a very serious problem.
We have vacant houses, but we must not misunderstand the position. Many of these houses have become vacant because the relative of the deceased tenant not being protected has had to leave. Throughout the country there has been increasing difficulty, with anxiety growing up and even suicides among some of those who are deprived of their homes. It is in this situation that I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill. Its terms may not meet with the approval of everybody, in every sense, but that point can be dealt with later.
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Robert Jenkins: As the House knows, I have been involved in attempting to obtain some relief for those threatened with eviction in October this year, but during the Committee stage of the Rent Act I voted against an Amendment on the same lines as that proposed in the Bill which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) seeks leave to introduce. I say that to clear from the minds of hon. Members any thoughts they may have that I have in any way gone back upon my attitude to the original Rent Bill.
I would ask hon. Members to realise that any critical remarks I make about the Bill are in no way directed against the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West. Everybody who knows anything about local government, and the way in which the hon. Member acts in his constituency and elsewhere, knows that he has very much at heart the good of people
236
who are in housing difficulties. But it is pertinent to say that the hon. Member had his chance of getting a move on with the proposals contained in his Bill between 1931 and 1935, when he was the Liberal Member for Stepney. As far as I remember, he did nothing about it.
Mr. Walter Edwards: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon Member to speak of my hon. Friend as being the hon. Member for Stepney from 1931 to 1935 when there was no such constituency in those days?
Mr. Speaker: It may not be accurate, but it is in order.
Mr. Jenkins: Perhaps I may substitute "Whitechapel" for "Stepney." I think that the hon. Member represented the Whitechapel division of Stepney. From 1945 to 1951 the hon. Member sat for his present constituency, and he then had a wonderful opportunity, for six years, of trying to persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who was then Minister of Health, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), to do something about it. If, for thirty-eight years, no attempt has been made by the party opposite, and the hon. Member in particular——
Mr. Janner: The hon. Member should know that that is not correct. I have pressed this issue for years. There is a difference today, as I tried to explain.
Mr. Jenkins: If, with the enormous majority which the party opposite had during those years from 1945 to 1951, they did not think it necessary to put through a Bill of this kind, why should it be put through now?
Apart from the fact that nothing has been done about this problem for thirty-eight years, there are other reasons why I oppose the Motion. If one analyses the speech of the hon. Member one finds that he has not adduced any new facts. He did not deal with the subject on the grounds of equity, or suggest that there should be equity between the tenant and the landlord. He has not mentioned any new adverse change of circumstances. On the contrary, the embarrassment is much less now than it was in 1945–51, owing to the fact that the Conservative Party has taken an intelligent and progressive interest in housing since coming

237
to power. Further, no one can deny that the Rent Act is at present causing more accommodation to become available.
If my right hon. Friend had not brought in his amending Measure, and there had been the possibility of large-scale evictions taking place in October, there would have been something to say in favour of the hon. Gentleman's proposed Bill. But with the new evidence that has come to my right hon. Friend over the months, and with the new facts which have been adduced, my right hon. Friend has seen fit to bring in an amending Measure The evictions which would have taken place under the original Bill will not now take place, and the status quo has been maintained.
Mr. Edward Short: The sort of evictions which the hon. Member is talking about are not those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has referred. The Title of the proposed Bill shows that they are in an entirely different category. Is the hon. Member in order in making this point, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: It is difficult for me to say whether or not the two matters are connected. I saw nothing obviously out of order in what the hon. Member was saying.
Mr. Jenkins: No one who has thought about the matter at all would deny that rent restriction has to be done away with slowly. If the Bill were accepted it would increase rent restriction, whereas everybody is agreed that it must eventually be disposed of completely.
The only argument put forward by the hon. Member was that the Rent Act had made things far more difficult for people. That was his principal reason for seeking to bring in the Bill. He said that the landlord could now get double or treble the rent once he had got possession. That argument is fallacious, because the Rent Act has reduced rather than increased the risk of tenants' successors being turned out, since there is no longer the same incentive for the landlord or owner to insist upon vacant possession. On the
238
contrary, I have found that landlords in my constituency, where they have the right to obtain eviction orders in respect of the successors to the persons to whom the tenancies first passed, are more anxious to allow the present relatives to stay, at increased rents—because they can get them—than turn them out and sell their properties.
During the past weeks there have been occasions when I and some of my hon. Friends have abstained from voting against these Ten Minutes Rule Bills, and even occasions when we would have liked to vote with the Opposition. But once the Minister conceded a very vital principle hon. Members opposite should have ceased to pinprick him. This should be the last of this series of Ten Minutes Rule Bills. The Minister has conceded a vital point of principle, and the vendetta against him should now come to an end. The Bill appeals to the emotions, to some extent, and to that extent I am with the hon. Member—but it ignores the inaction of the party opposite in the past, and provides no sound reason why a thirty-eight-year-old Act should be amended.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West has been sniping at the Minister very pleasantly this afternoon, but his argument is really that the hereditary principle should be perpetuated. It may be felt right that a tenancy should go on for ever, being handed down to relatives, but if we alter an Act which nobody has attempted to alter until now, and if we perpetuate the hereditary principle, we are doing damage to all the Housing Acts. To all those involved—and there is a considerable number of them—I would say that the best thing they can do is to leave the matter as it is and to stop sniping at the Minister, who is doing a first-class job in housing our people.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 254.

Division No. 120.]

AYES

[4.30 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Albu, A. H.

Hamilton, W. W.

Paton, John

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hannan, W.

Pearson, A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Peart, T. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Hastings, S.

Pentland, N.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Popplewell, E.

Balfour, A.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Holman, P.

Probert, A. R.

Beswick, Frank

Holmes, Horace

Proctor, W. T.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Holt, A. F.

Rankin, John

Blackburn, F.

Houghton, Douglas

Redhead, E. C.

Boardman, H.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Reeves, J.

Bonham Carter, Mark

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Reid, William

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hoy, J. H.

Rhodes, H.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

Hubbard, T. F.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Bowles, F. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Brockway, A. F.

Hunter, A. E.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Ross, William

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Royle, C.

Burke, W. A.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Short, E. W.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Champion, A. J.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Sorensen, R. W.

Clunie, J.

Kenyon, C.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Coldrick, W.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Sparks, J. A.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

King, Dr. H. M.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Collins, V. J. (Shoredith & Finsbury)

Lawson, G. M.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Cove, W. G.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Sylvester, G. O.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Upton, Marcus

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Logan, D. G.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

McAlister, Mrs. Mary

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

MacDermot, Niall

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Deer, G.

McGhee, H. G.

Timmons, J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McInnes, J.

Tomney, F.

Diamond, John

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

McLeavy, Frank

Viant, S. P.

Dye, S.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Wade, D. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mahon, Simon

Weitzman, D.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

West, D. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mason, Roy

Wheeldon, W. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Messer, Sir F.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wigg, George

Fernyhough, E.

Monslow, W.

Wilkins, W. A.

Finch, H. J.

Moody, A. S.

Willey, Frederick

Fletcher, Eric

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

Williams, David (Neath)

Foot, D. M.

Mort, D. L.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Forman, J. C.

Moss, R.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moyle, A.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Mulley, F. W.

Winterbottom, Richard

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Gibson, C. W.

Oliver, G. H.

Woof, R. E.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Oswald, T.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Grey, C. F.

Owen, W. J.

Younger, Rt, Hon. K.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Padley, W. E.

Zilliacus, K.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Paget, R. T.

Grimond, J.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hale, Leslie

Palmer, A. M. F.

Mr. H. Hynd and Mr. Janner.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Aitken, W. T.

Baldwin, A. E.

Bingham, R. M.

Alton, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Balniel, Lord

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Alport, C. J. M.

Barlow, Sir John

Bishop, F. P.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Barter, John

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Arbuthnot, John

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Armstrong, C. W.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Ashton, H.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Braine, B. R.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Atkins, H. E.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

240

241

Brooman-White, R. C.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

Bryan, P.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Nugent, G. R. H.

Burden, F. F. A.

Hesketh, R. F.

Oakshott, H. D.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Campbell, Sir David

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Ormsby-Gore Rt. Hon. W. D.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Channon, Sir Henry

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, C.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hope, Lord John

Partridge, E.

Cole, Norman

Hornby, R. P.

Peel, W. J.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Cooke, Robert

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cooper, A. E.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Cordeaux, Lt. Col. J. K.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Powell, J. Enoch

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hurd, A. R.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Cunningham, Knox

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Currie, C. B. H.

Hyde, Montgomery

Rawlinson, Peter

Davidson, Viscountess

Iremonger, T. L.

Redmayne, M.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Deedes, W. F.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Renton, D. L. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Robertson, Sir David

Doughty, C J. A.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Russell, R. S.

Duncan, Sir James

Kaberry, D.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

Kimball, M.

Sharples, R. C.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Kirk, P. M.

Shepherd, William

Errington, Sir Eric

Lagden, G. W.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Erroll, F. J.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Fell, A.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Speir, R. M.

Finlay, Graeme

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Forrest, G.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Foster, John

Llewellyn, D. T.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Longden, Gilbert

Storey, S.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Studholme, Sir Henry

Gammans, Lady

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Gibson-Watt, D.

McAdden, S. J.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Glover, D.

Maodonald, Sir Peter

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Teeling, W.

Godber, J. B.

McKibbin, Alan

Temple, John M.

Goodhart, Philip

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Gough, G. F. H.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Gower, H R.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Graham, Sir Fergus

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Crant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Green, A.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Turner, H. F. L.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Maddan, Martin

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Gurden, Harold

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Wall, Patrick

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Mathew, R.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Mawby, R. L.

Webbe, Sir H.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Wood, Hon. R.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Nairn, D. L. S.

Woollam, John Victor

Hay, John

Neave, Airey

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Nicholls, Harmar

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Dance and Mr. Page.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  4.38 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time,
  I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are relieved that we are now reaching the end of this parliamentary marathon. I certainly am. My advisers tell me that since the Bill was published, towards the end of last year we have devoted, all told, about 113 hours to its consideration, and, as I do not want to pile on the agony this afternoon, I propose to make a relatively short speech. We have also had, by the way, no fewer than 69 Divisions, all of which have passed off satisfactorily, thanks largely to the vigilance of one of my hon. Friends.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to say at the start—it pleases me very much indeed to be able to say it—that the relations between the parties, both here and in the Standing Committee, throughout the proceedings on the Bill have been most amicable. The expressions applied to my right hon. Friend, although in other connections they have very often been colourful and, indeed, caustic, have not in this context been too bad. The most critical adjective that passed across the Floor of the House was "disingenuous", and immediately the hon. Member who used it felt so timorous about it that he wondered whether it was a parliamentary expression.
  One of the difficulties with a detailed Bill of this sort is that in the course of considering it one gets so close to it that one cannot see the wood for the trees. I have constantly been reminding myself, as I am sure other hon. Members have been reminding themselves, that local government is not merely a hobby horse for our elected aldermen and councillors, that it is not merely a source of employment for very many worthy people and that it is not even just a subject for academic research by students, some of whom think they know all about local government, except, perhaps, how it
  244
  works. Our system of local government is, after all, an integral part of our democratic form of government, and, of course, its primary responsibility is to the public which it serves.
  Looking back today, it seems strange that there has been no reform in the major structure of local government since 1888, when, I think, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whose speeches and reminiscences in the Standing Committee were so diverting and interesting, was a strapping boy of six years of age. In that year, the expenditure of all the local authorities in the country was about £50 million. Though I am told that money had rather more value in those days, it still represented a trivial percentage of the total national income.
  The fact is that local government today is big business. Last year, its gross revenue expenditure amounted to £1,600 million, nearly 10 per cent. of the national income, and approximately a quarter of Government expenditure. That is why it seems odd that there has been no comprehensive review of the main structure for as long as seventy years. I do not know what we should think of any other enterprise which had developed so much but had never undergone a major reorganisation during a period like that. I am sure that the Government are right at this stage to make the attempt to adapt local government to the times in which we live, to give it greater autonomy and to give financial assistance on a basis which at least my hon. Friends and I regard as sensible. It is a big undertaking, but it has certainly not come before its time.
  I turn, first, to the provisions in the Bill affecting areas and functions. Our earlier debates showed very general agreement on the need for reorganisation and on the basic aim of the Bill, which is effective and convenient local government. It was also accepted on both sides that this could best be achieved by setting up strong local government commissions to look at the major problems, the results of these reviews and of the county reviews which will follow them being embodied in Orders debatable in Parliament.
  So far as functions go, I do not think that there was any disagreement at any stage that some kind of devolution of

  245
  these important functions to the larger districts was desirable. The future of the special review areas, however, has undoubtedly excited a lot of controversy, and it is perfectly natural that it should, because their population is approaching 10 million people. I am, of course, excluding the Greater London area.
  I must say that some people seem to have rather odd ideas about what the special review areas ought to be for. The Manchester Guardian and the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) seemed to think that their sole purpose should be to provide enormous areas for the reception of overspill. They have very little or even no regard for all the other problems of local government in the conurbations or, indeed, for the need to ensure—this is the important thing, of course—that real local government is established in these areas. On the other hand, there are some people, including, I think, some of my hon. Friends, who are afraid that there may be unnecessarily drastic changes in conurbations.
  I should like to reassure the House at this point as to the safeguards which we are creating to make sure that the special review areas are dealt with on their merits and that political pressures from which we can never wholly escape in a matter of this sort are not allowed to ruin the work either of the commissions or of the Minister. To begin with, let me make it clear that the inclusion of an area in a special review area in no way precludes a local authority from going to the commission and asking the commission to recommend its exclusion from special review.
  These areas mentioned in the Third Schedule are, as my right hon. Friend has repeatedly said, only a starting basis from which the commissions can best examine the local problems. I know we have been criticised for saying this sort of thing, but I do feel that those criticisms are rather less than reasonable, for it would not only be impracticable but presumptuous for our advisers in Whitehall or for my right hon. Friend to draw precise boundaries for any conurbation.
  Nor, again, does the inclusion of any special review area either at the start or for the period of the review in any
  246
  way prejudge the ultimate decision as to what future changes should take place in a district or indeed whether there should be any changes at all. Although we thought it right to allow for all sorts of alternative changes I do want to emphasise that the need for any change at all has to be demonstrated by the commission to the Minister, and it certainly does not follow that because the Bill allows for the possibility of one kind of change that it will, in fact, take place, or that if it takes place in one special review area it will necessary take place in another.
  What are the safeguards against unnecessary or doctrinaire or hole-in-the-corner changes affecting special review areas? First, my right hon. Friend intends to appoint strong local government commissions under the chairmanship of outstanding individuals who will not be susceptible either to pressure or to undue influence. Next, as the House knows, he has decided to write into regulations which will require to be approved by Parliament the principal considerations which are to guide the commissions in their work. When the commission has set to work, having consulted the various local authorities in a conurbation one by one, then it must prepare and issue to all these authorities its draft proposals, which will also have to be available for public inspection.
  The commission will then consider representations and confer with all the authorities concerned, and after that it will put its proposals to the Minister. He, in turn, will circulate those proposals to the local authorities and to other interested bodies, and, almost invariably, he will hold public inquiries into objections. Finally, the Minister's Order giving effect, perhaps with modifications, to the commission's proposals will be debatable in Parliament, and these Orders will, of course, be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure.
  I think that I perhaps ought also to add, in parenthesis, that the Bill is so drafted as to make sure that there will be a separate Order in respect of each special review area when the time comes.
  Perhaps I may turn for a few moments to the financial provisions in Part I of the Bill. The most important, of course, is the proposal for the new general grant.

  247
  The theme of this Bill is effective and efficient local government. Local government can be neither of these things unless it has real responsibility to manage its own affairs, and the purpose of an elective local government system is to enable action on local matters to be decided by people who understand the local conditions and who are responsible, moreover to the local electorate.
  As we well know, however, local government needs are such that large-scale financial support from the centre is quite inescapable, and will probably remain so for a long time to come. Therefore, the important question is how to give that financial support from the Exchequer in such a way as to do as little damage as possible to the principle of local responsibility.
  As we see it, the great merit of the general grant is that there are no strings attached to it. It adds to the resources of the local authorities so that they are able to discharge their duties, but it does it in a way which leaves them free to exercise their own judgment and discretion as to the way in which the services are provided; and it manages to do this, moreover, without sacrificing any national interest, because adequate safeguards are retained to ensure that national standards are observed.
  By concentrating the attention of the central Government on the important national points we hope to strengthen the partnership between central Government and local government and to produce a better understanding of their respective rôles than does at the present time the system of specific grants which, of necessity, embroils the central Government in many of the details of local authority spending and administration. The system also has the advantage of providing—and it does this quite regularly and openly—for the fixing of Government contributions to the cost of providing and developing many important services, and it will provide regular opportunities for the public review of the progress of these services.
  So I say that the general grant aims at greater objectivity in local financial administration, greater financial responsibility for the local authorities in running their own affairs, and more effective planning in the development of
  248
  services. It substitutes, in short, a coherent system for what, in our view, through habit and custom has become a hotchpotch which nobody can possibly defend in 1958.
  I am sure that both sides of the House are conscious of the fears which have been expressed both here and outside that education will suffer as the result of these new arrangements. I am sure the House would not wish me today to cover ground which has already been well trodden during the earlier stages of the consideration of this Bill. I recognise that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite distrust the motives of the Government. In my experience, analysis of political motives is always rather a chancy business, and I believe that politicians who devote their time to a study of motives invariably get wrong answers. I think it is much more profitable in public life to note that most politicians of both parties have a very strong nose for survival and are, therefore, sensitive to public opinion. Certainly the Government have. I think 1960 will demonstrate that.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: We have not noticed it lately.
  Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member has two years in which to abide in patience, and then he will realise it.
  I am convinced myself that public opinion nowadays—and I am being serious about this—would refuse to tolerate any interference with our standards of education. I think both sides of the House realise that.
  Perhaps the greatest social change that has come over our country in the last thirty years has been the growing interest of parents in their children—and, for that matter, of children in their parents—and of parents in the schooling of their offspring. Parents and children are more alive today to the opportunities for worth while work and service which have been thrown up by full employment and by scientific advance. The minds of many parents are exercised by the 11-plus, and many of them now take a really active interest in school organisations of one kind and another. More and more parents tend to become strongly sympathetic to the status of the teaching profession and to education in general. I myself do not believe that either the

  249
  Government or the local authorities, even if they wished to do so—and I do not believe they do—could afford to offend this deep and maturing influence which is developing in our country.
  I want to say a very brief word now about the important provision in this Bill which deals with the rerating of industry from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent.
  Mr. R. Moss: While agreeing with what the hon. Member says about public opinion, I hope he realises that it is possible to use certain technical arguments about the general grant, which might work to the disadvantage of education.
  Mr. Bevins: Yes, I do realise that possibility. I was simply contenting myself in this debate, since so much of the ground has been gone over already, with the influence of public opinion on local authorities and upon the Government. I perfectly appreciate the point the hon. Member has made.
  I want to say a word about the provision for the rerating of industry from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. As hon. Members know, it has been strenuously argued in Committee on the Bill that the Government have not gone far enough, but what I think we all have to remember is that in the financial year 1959–60 industry's share of the total rate burden will be about three times what it was in 1955, and although, admittedly, most of our industry is today prosperous, we think it would be a mistake to assume that all the industrial firms could shrug off any heavier imposition like water off a duck's back. For example, some of the smaller mill owners in the Lancashire cotton industry are not having a very easy time and might find matters difficult.
  We have been anxious to avoid any precipitate action at this stage which might affect prices either in the domestic market or for exports, and I think the House will see the danger of this when I say that the effect of full rerating would be to add approximately 2½d. per lb,. of cotton yarn costing 50d. a 1b. I can inform hon. Members that this increase, modest though it sounds, would add significantly to the cotton industry's problems in world markets.
  Indeed, my right hon. Friend received a communication on Friday from the
  250
  Federation of the Master Cotton Spinners' Association and the Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association. Perhaps the House will permit me to read this telegram:
  "We understand that the Opposition have put down an Amendment to abolish industrial derating in the Local Government Bill. For reasons previously submitted, the textile industry is already perturbed at the increase from 25 to 50 per cent., especially when coupled with revaluations. Any further transposition of the rate burden to industry would be unfair and unreasonable, The cotton industry is suffering from acutely depressed trading conditions and any further rate increase would add directly and significantly to the distressed position of many firms and might well contribute to further closures of mills and more unemployment. We strongly urge the the Government to reject the Opposition Amendment.…"
  Mr. A. G. Bottomley: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that, in debate on Recommittal, I think it was. I said that where an industry was likely to be adversely affected, it was the responsibility of the Government to see that the industry was not unnecessarily burdened, and that an industry could not reach this state of affairs by avoiding its rate responsibility. The Government have other means at their disposal to help industry.
  Mr. Bevins: I remember well what the right hon. Gentleman said. Here, we are dealing with provisions to rerate industry to the extent of 50 per cent. It is perfectly clear from the views expressed by the Lancashire cotton industry that it would very bitterly resent any further imposition.
  I have taken the opportunity to look at the particular case of the motor car industry which was referred to during the Report stage by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). All I want to say about it is that I think he overlooked the fact that this particular industry leans very heavily for its materials and its components on a very considerable number of firms, all of which are affected by re-rating. The cumulative effect of rerating on 200, 300 or, perhaps, 400 firms—numbers like that are very often involved in the motor car industry—would, according to my calculation, mean that the price of cars in the export market might rise by as much as £10 per car. As I say, we feel that, by going to the extent of 50 per cent. rerating, we have gone as far as it is prudent to go.
  Mr. David Jones: If that is the case and there is so much consideration now for industrialists who could not afford to pay, would it not have been better if the Government had allowed the local authorities to keep all the result of doubling the rate up to 50 per cent.?
  Mr. Bevins: We had quite lengthy arguments about that during our earlier proceedings. As I said, during the last stage of the Bill, I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman seriously believes that an operation of that sort can take place without some disturbance to the structure of local government grants from the Exchequer.
  Following upon what I have said with regard to the rerating of industry, I should like to express the hope, a hope which I am sure is shared by both sides of the House, that this proposal will encourage more people who spend their lives in industry to come forward and take an active part in local government. I trust that our proposals in general, as they evolve, will add to the zest and spirit of local affairs and not only attract more able men and women to serve but also do something to break down the apathy of the ordinary voter. It is no use our blaming the electorate for its apathy in municipal affairs and moaning about the counter-attractions of television and so on. The fact is that local government in our country must project itself to the man in the street; it must show him that its affairs, its personalities, and even, if one likes, its rows, are every bit as living, as colourful and as exciting as the hypnotic attraction of the little screen at home. I believe, and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side believe, that the Bill, by giving local government a new vitality, will bring about a new interest in local affairs and strengthen the basis of our British democracy.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I suppose we should share the Parliamentary Secretary's hope that there will be an increase in interest in local government and that more people will turn out to vote, though we are obliged to notice that the prospect of having this Bill passed into law appears not to have had that effect upon the supporters of the party opposite at local elections.
  252
  The Bill makes important financial changes in local government which are to come into operation in April next. At the same time, it sets in train provision for reviews which may result, over a period of time, in a major reform of local government boundaries and powers. In asking the House to refuse a Third Reading to the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I base the major part of our objection upon the financial proposals in it. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that relations between the parties had been amicable during the discussion on the Bill. It may be true—I hope it is—that the language used was correct, although, casting my mind back, I can remember one or two phrases rather harsher than the word "disingenuous." But, however correct the language may have been, I trust that the Government are under no illusion but that, out of our concern for the quality of service rendered by local government, and as a matter of principle, we on this side remain resolutely opposed to the Bill, on the main and most undesirable features of which the Government have proved quite adamant throughout the long process of discussion.
  If our major objection to the Bill and our reason for asking the House to reject it is based on Part I, we nevertheless take the view that there are some defects in the other parts of the Bill, and it is to those that I wish briefly to refer now. Since it is a matter of very widespread interest, no doubt many hon. Members will make a variety of critical comments on Part II as the debate proceeds. One of the features of the Second Reading debate was the frequency with which hon. Members opposite, after welcoming the Bill in general, pointed out how they disliked those parts of it with which they were most likely to become acquainted in their own localities.
  Part II provides for reviews by the local government commissions and by counties. The directive given to the local government commissions is to be contained in regulations to be made under the Bill. We on this side would have preferred, and we tried by Amendment to secure, that that directive should be enshrined in the Bill itself.
  One weakness of doing things by regulations is that although the regulations are subject to Parliamentary control,

  253
  Parliament can, after all, only say "Yes" or "No" to the regulations en bloc. It cannot do what it could do if the directive were put in the form of a Schedule to the Bill. It cannot discuss the matter in detail and itself frame what the directive would be. It seems to us that, in not enshrining the directive in the Bill but in preferring to do it by regulation, the Government have shown, as they have at other points, a tendency to put into the hands of the Minister and the executive branch of government a greater degree of power than is really necessary for the efficient carrying out of the purposes of Part II of the Bill.
  When we come down to the reviews themselves, looking at Clause 28 of the Bill, it seems to us that certain powers of review are to be given to counties which would have been better entrusted to the Local Government Commissions themselves. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary said, very rightly, that we ought not to regard local government simply as the hobby-horse of councillors and aldermen any more than we ought to regard Parliamentary Government as something to provide an occupation for ourselves. That remark was very much to the point. There is a real danger, when we who are engaged in the machinery of Government talk in glowing terms of our great Parliamentary traditions or our great traditions of local government, that we may wander away with the idea that government is an end in itself. What matters to the public is the quality of the service which the governmental machine turns out.
  The relevance of this reflection to the matter of county reviews is that, when these questions of boundaries within a county have to be considered, there will be a real danger, if the review is carried out simply by the county itself, that it may be altogether too much subject to local vested interest, to the amour-propre of the councillors in a particular district. We may not have that consideration for the general public at large which is desirable rather than consideration merely for the interests and affections which elected representatives have formed for the entities to which they are accustomed. That seemed to us to be a defect in the Bill.
  With regard to the special review areas, on which hon. Members will, I imagine,
  254
  have a good deal to say, I have this comment. In Clause 20, there is power to create or to recommend the creation within special review areas of counties containing no county boroughs but divided into county districts, and it is left very vague what the distribution of power and function is to be between such a county itself and the county districts of which it is composed. The Government did not seem, either in drafting the Clause or discussing it in Committee, to have considered how the administration of the various services is best to be carried out. The provision seems vague and to open the door for quite arbitrary recommendations by the Commission.
  The last point I want to make on Part II of the Bill concerns the Minister's powers when the task of review by local government commissions and by counties is completed and their proposals come before him. I wish particularly to comment on two powers he has enshrined in Clause 23 and, to some extent, in Clause 29. He has the power, of course, to make orders embodying the proposals or recommendations of the commissions. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would almost invariably hold an inquiry after making such an order if any objection were raised to its provisions. I wish to draw attention to the fact that, as the Bill now stands, the Minister can always get out of holding such an inquiry by the rather surprising device of saying, "I do not need to hold an inquiry about that; I know all about it". We suggested that, if the Minister were to avoid holding an inquiry when objections were made to his orders, he ought only to do that if the objections were of a trivial or frivolous nature. As the Bill now stands, however serious the subject-matter of the objection, the Minister can avoid an inquiry simply by exercising his own judgment about his own knowledge of the matter in dispute. This seems to give an unnecessarily arbitrary power to the Minister.
  Further, when he is making an order, the Minister can modify the recommendations or proposals of the commissions. This, in itself, is reasonable enough. We do not expect the Minister to be a mere "rubber stamp" in the commissions' hands. But when it was suggested in Committee that, if he does make such modifications, he ought particularly to

  255
  draw them to the attention of the persons specially affected by them and to make arrangements for such people or authorities to make representations to him and arrange to hold an inquiry to consider the representations, our Amendment to that effect was rejected.
  We feel, therefore, that there has been a granting of unnecessary power to the Minister in admittedly the considerable discretion that he must have in a Bill of this kind. It is important that there should not be that degree of arbitrariness for this reason. We share the Government's desire to give local government all the power and discretion that is consistent with good government and the proper administration of the services in meeting people's needs. But in any system of Government there must be some degree of control from the centre over local authorities.
  I contend that that central control ought not to be exercised too much by the executive arm of government and that Parliament ought to have a considerable say in the way in which central control over local authorities is exercised. It is on both sides of the House rather than inside the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that there are people who have served on local authorities and who are capable of making a judgment on the degree of control which the centre ought to have over the localities and of weighing properly the claims of central efficiency and local freedom. There must be some degree of control from the centre, but let us try to ensure that that control is exercised to as large a degree as possible by Parliament as well as by the Minister and the executive. I do not think that that principle has been given sufficient weight in certain of the Clauses of Part II.
  I turn now to what I said was our main reason for opposing the Bill, namely, the financial provisions, particularly the provision for block grant in Part I. As the Parliamentary Secretary's speech proceeded, I noticed that his description of local government under a percentage grant system became harsher and harsher with each succeeding sentence. It was a hotch-potch. It led to irresponsibility, and it deprived local government of interest. A number of important services have been run for a
  256
  long time on the percentage grant system. Whatever criticisms of local government might be made today, I do not think it is true that we can regard the administration, say, of the education service as an irresponsible hotch-potch. Still less would it be possible to maintain that any criticisms that can be validly made of educational administration can be linked up with the principle of the percentage grant.
  We have argued this matter many times. We have spent two days on Second Reading, there have been more than thirty meetings of the Standing Committee, and three days have been spent on Recommittal and Report, but there remains one general argument about the block grant which at no time have the Government been able to rebut and which it is therefore necessary, briefly, to repeat. There is a certain barest minimum standard of service below which local authorities are not allowed to go or they will be compelled by Ministerial action to mend their ways. We all understand that. We all understand, too, that if in general local authorities never did better than that bare minimum standard the result would be very deplorable indeed. Good service depends on there being many people in local government who are prepared to go beyond those minimum standards, to experiment, to advance and to show the way for the future so that what the enterprising local authority does in one decade becomes accepted as the minimum standard for the next. That is the way in which progress is made.
  What is the effect of the introduction of the block grant instead of the percentage grant? The answer is that the less public-spirited a council is, the more willing it is to do the bare minimum and no more and the greater the amount of money handed out under this Bill for use in the relief of rates to try to make such a council popular with the least public-spirited citizens. Then consider a more enterprising local authority, more prepared to go forward and not to be content with the barest minimum standards. The effect of the Bill is to throw a heavier burden on this sort of local authority's rates as the penalty for being public-spirited.
  The answer of the Government to criticism of the block grant has been,

  257
  "Do not worry. Public opinion will see to it that these services are not neglected". I am bound to say that that does approach the disingenuous, because the effect, whatever the intention of the block grant proposal, is to tilt public opinion against expansion of the service by giving those who want expansion a more difficult task when they stand up against un-public-spirited candidates at the elections. I acquit the Parliamentary Secretary.
  I do not suppose he knows the way in which the recent local elections have been run in London and that the party to which he belongs has been trying desperately to get support on the most un-public-spirited programme ever imagined, even more un-public-spirited than when the Minister was in charge of their fortunes. It is a little disquieting to find a Conservative Government defending the block grant on the ground that public opinion will save education from its effects and at the same time to find the Conservative Party in local government doing its best to mobilise public opinion for the slashing of services.
  One cannot get away from the fact that, whatever the attitude different parties may adopt at local elections, the effect of the block grant is to make the temptations to be niggardly and the penalties of being public-spirited greater. It is no answer for the Government to tell us, as they have done several times, that before the war there were some services that did not have a percentage grant, and they expanded very fast. Nobody suggests that the form of grant is the sole factor affecting the growth of the service. The Government have not refuted our suggestion that of the two forms of grant the general effect of block grant is to make it more difficult for councillors who want to be public-spirited to make their case with the electorate.
  The Government have gone on to argue that when we oppose the block grant we are distrusting local authorities, taking the view that they are all niggardly. Time and again the Minister has told us that they on their side of the House trust the local authorities. One recognises that a Minister in charge of a long and complicated Bill cannot always have at his fingertips all the arguments for every point and it is necessary for him to have
  258
  certain set phrases to use to fill in while the useful note is brought to him telling him what the real answer is to the point at issue. The right hon. Gentleman's set phrase during this Bill has been, "We on our side of the House trust the local authorities".
  What was the genesis of the block grant? In the White Paper that was supposed to express trust in local authorities, we were given as one of the main reasons for the introduction of the block grant the statement that the percentage grant was an incentive to indiscriminate expenditure. That does not show any great degree of trust in local authorities. The Minister of Education on Second Reading openly defended the block grant as a way of combating inflation and complained that local authorities were not concerned with nor trained for problems of national finance, and that if we left the local authorities with a percentage grant international financiers would have no trust in the future of this country. That does not suggest that the party opposite have confidence in local authorities.
  If we may be permitted for a moment to accept the proposition that not all the local authorities are perfect—and I take it that I carry the House with me on that point—we have to ask ourselves: which error are they more likely to make at present, particularly with regard to education, which is most affected by the financial provisions of the Bill? Will it be the error of being over-extravagant or the error of skimping?
  The Government's policy makes sense only if they take the view that there is a danger that local authorities left with a percentage grant would spend more on education than in the national interest they should spend, and, therefore, that some kind of brake should be put on them. Neither the White Paper nor the Minister's speech on Second Reading makes sense except on that assumption. Is that the view of the Government? Or do they still adhere to the view of the last Minister of Education that, if anything, this country is in danger of spending too little on education? It was Lord Hailsham who was right on that issue—that if we have any regard for the country's future, we ought to envisage a progressive expansion of the education service. We cannot get away from the fact that block grant, when all is said

  259
  and done is a way of damping down rather than of encouraging. The Government's policy makes sense only if one believes that there is a danger of the service being expanded more than the national interest required.
  In the end, the Government's view of the matter was shown plainly enough by their refusal to include police and civil defence expenditure in the provision of the block grant. I am not arguing that those services should be included. What I am saying is that the Government's refusal to include them shows that they know quite well what the effect of the block grant is likely to be and that their view on these two services is "We dare not risk the skimping that the block grant will almost certainly produce. We are prepared to risk it for education and for nearly a dozen other small services, but with regard to these two we know quite well what the block grant will mean and we shall not expose the police and civil defence to the dangers of the block grant." That inference can be drawn by any hon. Member who reads the report of the Committee proceedings. We are first told, "We have not included the police because there are grave technical difficulties about so doing".
  The Accountant-General of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government let the cat out of the bag when he said that there were not any technical difficulties and that they were not being included because of an urgent Cabinet decision on policy. In other words, the Government woke up in time to what were the real implications of their own policy and decided that they could not press the matter that far.
  I should say a word about the claim that the financial provisions of the Bill will give local authorities greater freedom. The Minister of Education endeavoured to justify that claim on Second Reading, but it was clear from what he said on all major matters of educational policy—such as matters affecting the number of teachers to be employed, the extent to which building could proceed and dilapidated schools replaced—there was no intention of relaxing control, nor indeed could there be. Those major matters are not affected by the financial provisions of the Bill.
  The Minister offered relaxation of controls in smaller matters—for example, the
  260
  transporting of children of a certain age to school, maintenance allowances for children over school-leaving age, attendance at conferences, and certain aspects of physical recreation. But when he finished that list, what was it that the House discovered? It was that there is nothing whatever to prevent a local authority from providing for all those things on a scale more generous than that which the Ministry recommends if it wishes and if it is prepared to pay the extra entirely out of the rates. It has the legal freedom to do that now. This Bill gives it no legal freedom it has not already got. As to the other aspects of freedom, that is to say the actual resources to do it, the capacity to do it, this Bill gives them nothing in that direction.
  Is it suggested that when the general grant is calculated it will be calculated on the assumption that local authorities will provide for maintenance allowances, transport of children, and the rest, on scales more generous than those already approved by the Ministry of Education? Obviously the general grant will not be calculated on such a basis. This means, then, that through this Bill no more resources will come to local authorities to do those things than they enjoy at the present time. They have no more freedom in law, no more freedom in fact, except for this, that they have the freedom up to a point to take the block grant and neglect the service. That is the only freedom which this Bill is conferring on them.
  This is the more serious when it is combined with the refusal of the Government to rerate industry 100 per cent., because the effect of the block grant is to shift a greater proportion of the cost of these services on to rates. Unless something is done at the same time to broaden the base of a local authority's revenue, it means putting a greater burden on the ordinary householder and putting it in the form of rates, which are a notoriously regressive form of taxation. In that respect, therefore, we are narrowing the resources of local authorities, and with that narrowing of resources, there goes the narrowing of real freedom.
  Yet so wedded have the Government been to this that, despite pleas from every possible quarter, some of them not in the least connected politically with the

  261
  Opposition, some of them concerned with highly specialised aspects of education on which the Government could have conceded a point without any real damage to the main structure of their Bill; so wrapped have they become in the doctrine of the block grant for the block grant's sake, that in the end we were simply being told, when we asked for any concession, You cannot have this, not because there is any special reason against it, but because the Government have made up its mind to have the block grant wherever it can get it, except in the police, of course, and that is that."
  May I commend to the Government's attention a sentence from last week's Economist? After referring in rather unkind terms to what were called the seaside resorts Amendment to this Bill, moved by certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, and describing it as a piece of constituency log-rolling, the Economist goes on to say:
  "There is all the difference in the world between special local pleading and genuine national considerations; and the Government would do well even at this late stage to consider again some concession to the real anxieties of educationists, including many on their own side of the House."
  The Economist, I am afraid, is more kind than just to that side of the House in this connection.
  I have mentioned education chiefly because, as we know, seven-eighths or 90 per cent. of the expenditure involved is on education. We ought not to forget, however, that exactly the same argument and objection applies to the other services listed in the First Schedule to this Bill.
  If we think of the fire services, the school crossing patrols, the health services, the care of handicapped persons, and all the things in that Schedule, we can say of every one of them as we can say of education, first, that any suggestion that local authorities as a whole have been extravagant on them or that the nation is spending too much on them, cannot be sustained for a moment; second, that some of them are so directly concerned with human life, safety and happiness that there is real danger, if they ae skimped—as the block grant proposal is always tempting local authorities to skimp—that there is not, as a matter of practical administration, any real freedom
  262
  for a local authority to take the block grant and say, "We will now spend ever so much less on the fire brigade than we used to, and enjoy our freedom to spend that amount more on education." Any acquaintance with how local authorities have actually to administer those services shows that freedom in this direction does not exist for practical purposes.
  Our conclusions, then, on this Bill are that while the provisions of Part II may well produce results which will in time give us more up-to-date boundaries and a better arrangement of functions, they are none the less in several respects disappointing and vague and unnecessarily arbitrary; and that in Part I we can only discern a clear hostility to certain local government services, particularly to education, and a denial of any real increase of freedom to local authorities.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that no major reform of local government had taken place since a day long ago in the Victorian era. That was a quarter of a century before my father was born and some measure of reform is obviously now due.
  It has been a long road from the White Papers, upon which I made my maiden speech in this House last July, to the Third Reading of this important Bill today. Despite the arguments of our opponents in the House and outside, I am still convinced that it is a good BT. My right hon. Friend the Minister has led us with clarity and with courage to this day when we give the Bill a Third Reading. He has also managed to repulse the attacks of the Opposition upon this Measure and, at the same time, on a great many other matters over which he has control.
  I have followed the Bill through all its stages, and much hard work and time has been devoted to it. In spite of that, however, I would not support the Bill unless I really believed that it would do some good to local government. I have a very real personal interest in local government, having been concerned with it before I reached this House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) accused our candidates in the local elections in London of lack of public spirit. I will only say, in passing, that perhaps our candidates in

  263
  Bristol have more public spirit, because we succeeded in winning two seats from the Labour Party.
  My chief concern with the Bill is in Clause I and the matter of general grant. It is significant that these will be debated in the House when they are about to be fixed. There are many benefits of general grant, but I will mention particularly two of them. The first is that the Exchequer will know where it stands. Our economy is always somewhat finely balanced, the public sector of expenditure is so large that it has a very definite effect upon the economy very quickly, and it would be no bad thing if we knew where we stood. Percentage grants tend to make for uncertainty. Also, in local government finance, the farce of the present type of estimates, which we see presented each year, can be replaced with the passing of the Bill by something like a proper budget of expenditure within known limits.
  Another benefit of the general grant will be the elimination of uncertainty in the planning of local authority activities. Anyone who has been on a local authority knows how frustrating it is, especially in the field of education which is so dear to the hon. Member for Fulham, to make a plan and to decide to build so many schools and then to have to change it because of some directive from above. Under the general grant, at least, the local authority will know where it stands and will be able to plan some distance ahead. This grant will, I believe, cut out much waste and will make for a much more smooth passage of work through local authority departments.
  The chief opposition to the Bill has come from educationists and teachers, and these people are, as one might expect from their qualifications, well organised and articulate. From my own experience as a teacher, I know that to put across a point of view one has often to indulge in highly persuasive arguments and also in subtle repetition, and I feel that is the technique which has been used by many educationists in opposition to the Bill. What the opposition really boils down to is that the educationists are afraid of their local finance committee.
  Education, say the Opposition, should be excluded from the general grant because of the great volume of expenditure.
  264
  Surely the fact that it is such a large slice of the general grant will make for plenty of room for the educationists to manoeuvre within the size of that grant. It is much more difficult to manoeuvre if one has only a small amount of money to spend. They will, when the Bill is passed, have a large sum, even more than they had before. That is an argument in favour of the Bill.
  The Minister of Education's powers to control education policy will still be as strong after the passing of the Bill as they were before. The Minister has said, and I thoroughly endorse this point of view, that a greater degree of public accountability for educational expenditure may be no bad thing. This might well apply to all types of local government expenditure. The public will really want to know where their money is going.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: They do now.
  Mr. Cooke: What the Bill is really asking the House to do is to trust local people to run local matters. It will not strengthen the control by party cliques of local authorities if public interest is revived, and that is what I believe will happen. I think that this Measure will not be long in operation before we shall see our critics confounded and local government in a far healthier condition than it is today.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has displayed his clarity and courage in the references he has made to his right hon. Friend the Minister in charge of the Bill. I am bound to say that we did not hear anything like that upstairs in Committee, because then there seemed to be an understanding that the Government would not be pleased with too much speaking from behind them. I am sure that it must be grateful and comforting to the Minister to find that, in this rather ampler atmosphere, such a tribute can be paid to him without incurring the wrath of anybody.
  I believe that this is a bad Bill. I believe that it is a worse Bill now than it was when it was introduced. We did not do much to it in Committee, but the first alteration to which the Minister agreed was moved by his hon. Friend the

  265
  Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and that provided a possibility of worsening the financial position of the poorer authorities beyond what was possible when the Bill was introduced.
  Now, before any reduction from the grants to the richer authorities can be made by the specification of a rate reduction of so many pence in the £, it has to be prescribed, for there were inserted into the Bill in Clause I, at a very early stage, the words "if it is so prescribed" in the power that was given to the Minister to make such a reduction. Apart from that, we found a place where the Bill referred to varying the cost, and that would imply that it could be altered up or down. It turned out from the context that the only way in which it could be applied was upwards, and, after a somewhat heated debate, as a great concession, the Minister suddenly announced, after his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had resisted it, that he would alter the word "vary" to "increase". I think that that was the one worth-while Amendment that was made in making the Bill say what we understood the Minister meant.
  Apart from that, in 31 sittings of the Committee, one would have thought that in any Amendment which was moved from the opposition side of the Committee we were trying to insert an Amendment into the Commandments inscribed on the years. It is not to be expected that the Minister regarded the Bill, unlike any other human institution, as perfect and incapable of any improvement by any person other than himself and that the conduct of the Opposition was limited to finding a defect in it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has dealt very adequately with the effect of the Bill on the education service, and as I said a good deal about that on Second Reading and in Committee, I do not intend to do much more this afternoon than say that I endorse every word that my hon. Friend has said. I welcome his announcement that he and his right hon. Friends on the Front Opposition Bench propose to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  We are now faced, as we part with the Bill, with the task of adntinistering it, and I am quite sure that the Minister will agree with me that that will be a formidable task for whoever has the job of
  266
  carrying on the Ministry of Housing and Local Government during the next few years. It is not to be expected that the work of reorganising local government can be completed earlier than 1963. As far as this House is concerned, and also the review of some of the counties whose consideration is held up by the fact that they are either in special areas or in the Metropolitan area, it may very well be long past that date before we get anything like finality in the set of changes which this Bill will inaugurate.
  There is another awkward piece of administration, and that is the preparation for making the Orders for the first general grant formula. Apparently, this has to be done before 1st April next if local authorities, particularly the county councils and the county boroughs, are to know, even with some degree of vagueness, perhaps, exactly what amount of money will be at their disposal. We asked that the first period should not be for two years, but should be for one year only. It is a defect in the Bill that it is still precribed that all the periods in the administration of this part of the Bill shall be for not less than two years. How local authorities are to be able to give the Minister, in time for this great mass of calculations to be carried through for the financial year beginning 1st April next and in time for any real consideration to be given to the matter, I am bound to say I cannot understand.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger"Ernie" will do it for us.
  Mr. Ede: That is where you chance your luck and that is about what I think it will be. I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is the first helpful observation that he has made in the discussion of the Bill.
  Mr. Iremonger: No, the second.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman did relieve us occasionally upstairs from the tedium of complete silence on the other side of the Committee, and, in fact, he once almost supported something I was saying, and then realised that that might give a little trouble in other quarters where he desired to avoid it.
  Rumour has reached me, and I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict it, that local authorities are to be expected to give their estimates for the next two years by the end of July, and.

  267
  in any event, not later than 15tn August. That is only a rumour, and we all know that rumour is a lying jade, though occasionally I have even known it to give the right solution to the problem of the Derby. I would point out to the Minister that if that is the case he is submitting a well-nigh insoluble problem, unless what he wants to get is what he could get now in his own office—a projection of the graph of the expenditure of the last few years.
  Had the grant remained a constant thing, that might have been possible. As a rule, it forms a rough and ready guide to what we might expect, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill, introducing, as it does, for the service which is the greatest source expenditure for local government an entirely new system of grant, and it being said that the reason for this is that local authorities will have the opportunity of greater freedom in being able to consider what they would like to do, without any pressure from the Government one way or the other, to attempt to get the information from the local authorities as to what, in the changed circumstances, they think the allocation of their finance will be, is to ask them to do something which in the time that I have suggested might be the time is quite impossible.
  I would urge the Minister that, in another place, much as I dislike using the other place for anything useful, he should, first, postpone the date on which the general grant is to become operative for another year, and that he should think once again on the question whether, at any rate in the early years, it ought not to be an annual grant, with the calculations made annually, and revised each year so that, until people got used to the working of it, they will not be expected to make estimates two years ahead. What I fear very much, if what I hear is likely to be the case actually happens this year, is that, instead of getting a greater interest by local authority members in the provision of these estimates, the probability is that it will have to be done so hurriedly that it would have to be mainly the work of the senior officials.
  The right hon. Gentleman has claimed throughout the discussions on the Bill that he has had the support of the local authority associations. I do not believe that he ever had it for a start, because
  268
  what the County Councils' Association, at any rate, told us was that it was not opposed to the concept of a general grant, but that it was unable to accept the Government's proposals as they stood, and particularly sought satisfactory assurances on a number of points, to which I will refer in a moment. If the right hon. Gentleman still claims to have the support of the local authorities, I would ask him how far we can find in the Bill any of the stipulations, (a) (b) (c) (d), which they made.
  First, on the amount of the grant. Nobody knows how it is to be calculated, except that certain numbers are to be arrived at in different ways and are to be used to multiply certain prescribed sums of money, none of which has yet been revealed to any one. Secondly, periodical revision of the grant, and particularly annual reviews. Next, grants on services not assisted or inadequately assisted. All these were included in sub-paragraph (a). Next, sub-paragraph (b) refers to reduction of central control. We have heard a lot about that in vague terms, and whenever anyone has suggested that any of the services might suffer, we were then told that the Minister will see that it does not suffer and that we could rest assured on that. So far as that goes, we were told, they would look after it very well.
  The next reference is to the inclusion of other Home Office services. Why should my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham be disappointed or even criticise the fact that the police have not been brought in? Did he ever think that a Government mainly interested in the protection of property would ever run any risks with regard to the strength, distribution and discipline of the police force? The next item refers to the dropping of the proposal to pool expenditure on a wide range of further education. Nothing has been done about that. When I, not agreeing with them on that, moved an Amendment to increase the scope of further education to be brought into the pooling arrangements, the Parliamentary Secretary explained how nicely balanced the whole thing was. He said that they had brought in neither too little, nor too much, but just the night amount.
  The Bill is causing all those who take a deep personal interest in local government with greatest anxiety. I shall go

  269
  into the Lobby against it tonight quite certain that its defeat would be the greatest thing for the future of local government which any of us here today could do. I sincerely hope that before the Bill becomes law the Minister will think over some of the things which were urged on him during the 31 sittings of the Standing Committee and will endeavour to lessen the havoc which will otherwise be caused in a service to which thousands of our fellow countrymen and women give honorary services day after day, month after month, and year after year. As one who gave forty-one years of his life to this service, I regret to have lived to see the day when this Bill seems likely to get a Third Reading in this House.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Glover: I will not follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his strictures on the Bill because, curiously enough, I support it, and the part which I support most strongly is the part of which he appeared to disapprove most strongly, Part I. That does not surprise me, because the party opposite, although paying lip service to it, does not believe in democracy. In the 1945 local elections—and I did not have this thought until I listened to recent speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite—the party opposite produced a most interesting booklet called "Forge the Link" on the front of which was a picture of Westminster and the town hall with an enormous chain between the two. The chain was simply to take away freedom from the town hall. The Bill will bring back a good deal of freedom to the town hall.
  Much criticism is made of the Bill because teachers, in particular, feel that it may have an adverse effect on education. The purpose of the Bill is to place a trust on the people, the people who are the local electorate, and who will insist that they get sound and efficient administration and the services which they require. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their fears, then there is something gravely wrong with our education system, because by the time the Bill is in operation many of the voters will have gone through the education system produced by the Education Act, 1944. They will have been trained largely by those very teachers who are complaining, but if they have left school bereft of a
  270
  public and civic sense of duty, then all I can say is that we had better have a look at our whole education system.
  I understood that the whole basis of our education system was to produce a race of people who were able to assess what was right and proper and good for their own district and who did not need direct interference from Whitehall. Given a chance to get into operation, Part I will prove to be right. If the council does fall down on its level of efficiency, then the electorate will put the matter right in the council elections, and so I support Part I whole-heartedly.
  My right hon. Friend is about right in his proposals for rerating. I believe that at some time we must fully rerate, but at present, when industry has been reassessed on a 1956 rateable value while much property is still assessed on 1939 values, 50 per cent. of 1956 values compared with 100 per cent. of 1939 values is just about the correct level of valuation, and on that basis the new valuation is fair.
  One of the greatest improvements to local government will result from Part II I do not propose to refer to that in detail, but there is one thing about which I am still worried—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). That is the control over the special review areas. I hope that even now my right hon. Friend will reconsider his views. I think that the House should have a greater control over what is proposed by the commissions for the special review areas.
  At present, the proposal is that the House should deal with these matters by affirmative Resolution. We reach many weighty decisions in the House of Commons and we usually reach them after long and careful debate. However, affirmative Resolutions often go through very quickly at a late hour of the night, and yet these affirmative Resolutions will affect, certainly in most areas, 1 million people and, in some areas, 2 million people. The House should have more opportunity of debating what will be proposed for the special review areas and perhaps an even greater control about where such areas should be established. I hope that my right hon. Friend will study this matter again, because it is the only one in the Bill which causes me concern.

  271
  I agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields, who has such a wealth of experience in these matters, that the Bill will involve an enormous amount of reorganisation, a tremendous amount of rethinking, and will involve many people in local authorities and departments all over the country having to get rid of preconceived ideas.
  I believe that when it has settled down, the more modern status which will be brought about and the more modern grouping of various areas will produce more viable units, so that local government will be not only more responsible, but more efficient and, most important of all, will serve the people better than it does today.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. R. Moss: Like the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover), I am not opposed to everything in the Bill, but I am opposed to some of the things which he supported and I shall no doubt make those clear as I proceed.
  It was interesting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying that local government was an integral part of our democratic form of government. It is not only that, it is a school for democracy, for it is through local government that many people have an opportunity to educate themselves about the work of government and taking responsibility. It should be our purpose to enable those people to exercise responsibility in local government over the very important services which they have to run. I was very pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Minister intends to appoint a strong commission, because I consider that that will be essential to any success which the Bill may have.
  I welcome certain provisions in the Bill, even in Part I. For instance, I welcome the application of rate deficiency grants to district councils, provided in Clause 5. I welcome the rerating of industrial and freight transport hereditaments to 50 per cent., although I take the view that it should be increased to 100 per cent. Nevertheless, half a loaf is better than no bread.
  I welcome the new provisions in Clauses 10 to 13 for the rating of gas and electricity hereditaments. Incidentally, I have a strong constituency interest in the
  272
  Hams Hall Power Station. Unlike some hon. Members opposite, I welcome the transitional provisions contained in Clause 15, for although I sought to modify them in certain respects in Standing Committee I made it clear at the time that I thought that they were desirable.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said, quoting Clause 17, that the main purpose of the Bill was to achieve effective and convenient local government. Owing to the clash of interests involved, and the varying sizes of the local authorities concerned, the Government will need to appoint a very strong commission. In that connection, I want to quote an article published in the Local Government Chronicle of 12th April, 1958. The article paid detailed attention to certain ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell), but concluded with this paragraph:
  "It seems highly probable that there will be no sweeping changes in the structure of local government. There is a growing opposition to reorganisation within the service: few officers will welcome changes which might reduce the number of positions vacant and will certainly reduce the number of chief officer posts, and few councillors will welcome changes which might alter the balance of the political parties to their disadvantage, or even reduce the number of seats vacant. Local loyalty is still strong and will doubtless add to this growing opposition to radical reorganisation."
  That quotation indicates one of the reasons why it will be necessary to appoint a strong commission if it is to do any good.
  For instance, if we consider the West Midlands conurbation and the varying sizes of local authorities which will make representations to the commission, from parish councils like Castle Bromwich to the City of Birmingham, it is obvious that a very strong commission will have to be appointed if it is to resist the stronger authorities and pay sufficient attention to the representations of the smaller authorities. Anyone who has had any experience of such inquiries knows that cases can be put forward more or less effectively according to the quality of the persons at the command of the local authority.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the case Birmingham may put up in this matter has no merit

  273
  at all. A strong commission would be one which would consider all the issues and come to a decision on the merits of the case.
  Mr. Moss: That is precisely my argument, that a strong commission would come to a decision on all the merits of the case. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have never held such views about Birmingham, although I have found them prevalent outside the city.
  A good example can be found in Clause 25 and the Third Schedule, which deals with special review areas. The West Midlands special review area is 275 square miles in extent, but it is theoretically possible through the use of Clause 25 to add another 730 square miles. That is a considerable mileage. Obviously, the Minister will have to be very careful about the appointment of this commission and to see that the best people are put on it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr M. Stewart) declared, opposition to the Bill centres on the general grant, which, in the words of Clause 1 (3),
  "shall be payable in aid of the revenues of the recipient authority generally."
  I incline to the view that, if we have to have a general grant, the Bill provides as many safeguards as can reasonably be expected. Clause 2 (1) provides that the Minister must take into account five factors. First, he must take into account all the latest information about the rate of relevant expenditure. Secondly, he must consider
  "the current level of costs, prices and remuneration".
  Thirdly, he must pay attention to any future variation in that level of costs, prices and remuneration which can be foreseen. Fourthly, he must consider the demand which exists for the services. Fifthly, he must consider the need to develop those services in the light of the economic situation.
  Moreover, Clause 2 (4) contains a provision for interim revision of the general grant. A new Burnham award would constitute such occasion for interim revision. Of course, the basic grant takes account of children under 15 years of age and supplementary grants are payable in respect of children under five years of age and pupils on the registers of maintained or assisted schools, pupils
  274
  maintained at other schools and at occupation centres. That is under the First Schedule, Part III. We have the additional power in Clause 3 and in Clause 1 (6) we have the provision that the general grant order and report have to be laid before the House.
  The remarkable thing is that in spite of those provisions in the Bill and in spite of repeated assurances given by the Minister, the world of education remains unalterably opposed to the general grant. Teachers and education committees alike are opposed. There is considerable doubt as to what support the Minister has among local authorities themselves, as distinct from education committees. Therefore, it cannot be said, not even by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, that with an opposition which is so persistent in respect of the provisions of the Bill I have enumerated, and which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have repeatedly adduced in justification of the general grant—or, as was said in Committee, "to make it respectable"—teachers and education committees do not remain opposed to it. I think that the House ought to try to understand why that is so.
  The first reason is that those who are opposed to the introduction of the general grant in Part I of the Bill fear the skinny hand of the Exchequer economy. This, I suppose, is one of the arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary would include in the category of motive when he talks about distrusting the motives of the Government. The argument is that education is the main service affected—comprising 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the many involved. The sole purpose of introducing the general grant, whether it be related to the battle against inflation or not, is to effect economy on the basis of necessary costs. By that I mean not simply to eliminate extravagance, but to effect real economy in the sense either of preventing the expansion of the service, or of reducing it.
  The second reason is contained in an interesting article in the Universities Quarterly for February, 1958, contributed by the editor of Education. The House will perhaps allow me to quote one sentence from that article:
  "The immediate effect of the change will be that every penny beyond a certain sum spent by a local authority on education will come wholly from the rates and every penny saved will wholly benefit the rates."

  275
  A local authority will know that if it undertakes an expansion of the education service locally, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education said, it will have to be financially responsible for such expansion entirely out of its own resources. I am suggesting that the opponents of the general grant have a serious and genuine basis for their opposition because they fear that its application is bound to result in a failure to secure the necessary expansion of the education service because, beyond a certain point, in future the whole of the expenditure will fall on the rates.
  If we consider a new Burnham award, so far as I understand the financial provisions, that will make it more difficult for local authorities under a general grant because the general grant has no relationship to expenditure, whether on teachers' salaries or not. Local authorities faced with an increase in teachers' salaries, if there is an interim revision of the general grant, will have to place a greater burden on the rates than would have been necessary under the old system.
  The third reason has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. A local education authority which forges ahead will be penalised, while a local education authority which does not do so will secure what the Minister of Education, in an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, called an uncovenanted financial gain. It is one of the accepted lessons of the history of educational development that it is important for some authorities to set the pace and to prescribe standards so that what they achieve may ultimately percolate through the whole system. The general grant will make that less likely because a progressive local authority will know that any advances it seeks to make above the national average it will have to bear entirely out of rates, and to that extent it will be discouraged. On the other hand, a local authority which hangs back will gain and will be able to reduce the rates in its locality because it hangs back. That was made clear by the Minister of Education when he said that the City of Birmingham, because it was understaffed, would benefit more from the general grant. That argument has only to be reversed to show that a local authority which does not provide
  276
  the full service will benefit financially since the general grant is not distributed in relation to expenditure.
  The fourth reason, which, again, the Parliamentary Secretary may think comes under the category of motive, is that it is believed that the Government are seeking to compel local authorities to raise more money locally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that that argument could be advanced in a scientific way and not from party political prejudice. He probably remembers that The Times once said that the only way to make local authorities more autonomous was to make them raise more funds locally so that autonomy would follow financial autonomy.
  It is remembered that it has been said in the House that for every £6 spent out of taxation only £5 is spent out of rates at present. It has been said that rates in recent years have not increased to the same extent as taxes have increased. There was an article in one of the bank journals which argued to the same effect. All this leads people to believe that it is the ultimate intention of the Government to thrust a greater burden on to local rates. The tendency will be to thrust the burden of educational expansion upon the financial instrument least able to bear it. The rating system is too inflexible to be used for this purpose.
  The fifth argument is that education committees will tend to lose the special status which they have had, as already appears to be the case in Sheffield. They will be placed on the same footing as other committees and will have to join in the scramble for their share of the money.
  Lastly, a lot remains to be done about overcrowded classes, shortage of teachers, elimination of old and unfit schools. It is sometimes said that the 1944 Act has been only half achieved. In his book "Representative Government", which was published in 1861, John Stuart Mill said, about local services:
  "But among the duties classed as local, or performed by local functionaries, there are many which might, with equal propriety, be termed national, being the share, belonging to the locality, of some branch of the public administration in the efficiency of which the whole nation is alike interested."
  The examples which he gave were gaols, police and justice. The outstanding

  277
  example which we could give today is the education service.
  The education service must be developed in the national sense. It is not local from that point of view. It is a service upon which the future prosperity and influence of the country depend. It is a national service locally administered and it must be encouraged on a national and not a local basis. It is therefore desirable, or so it seems to me, that the Government should have retained the financial instrument which has been so valuable to the education service in the past. That is admitted by all students of the subject, no matter what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education may say, and they regret its passing now.
  That is the reason why I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I believe that the general grant will be hostile to the future needs of education in this country, and that, in the long run, we shall have thrown away a long-term advantage for a mess of potage.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I have only two points to make and they are both marginal, although one of them is of the greatest possible importance to the borough which I represent. I should like to refer briefly, however, to the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss).
  I hope that I shall not embarrass the hon. Gentleman unduly if I say that a large part of his speech was very fair indeed. He gave credit, which not all of his hon. Friends have done, to the safeguards in the Bill which should ensure that the use of the general grant does not justify some of the fears that have been expressed. The hon. Gentleman conveyed very well the atmosphere of stubborn resistance and prejudice with which we are faced in some quarters, although he rather overestimated the weight of opinion covered by that prejudice.
  Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, and for so many hours to arguments put forward in the House, in the Committee and elsewhere, against the general grant and its effect upon education, I remain unimpressed. Of course, it is possible that a local education committee or the local authority will pinch education in order to save the rates. Of course, it is
  278
  possible that the Government of the day, the present Government or one of their successors, of whatever political colour, may make a general grant which is so mean as to hinder the development of education. Of course, it is possible that Parliament, which has the duty and is responsible for approving the general grant, will endorse such a grant. It is possible: if the Government, if the House of Commons and if the electorate are mad and irresponsible. Our anxiety about the Bill must be measured by the degree of responsibility which we believe the public and its elected representatives are capable of upholding.
  Of all the arguments I have heard and listened to so carefully, the real point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The way in which the arguments have been presented will, I am sure, remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of the story which he will have heard so many times at the Bar. It concerns the advice given to a young advocate. It was, "When you have the facts on your side, hammer them into the jury. When you have the law on your side, hammer it into the judge. When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side then just hammer hell into the table." That characterises the philosophy of the advocacy with which the case against the general grant has been put.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman put the whole thing into a nutshell at one stage of our debate in Committee in Westminster Hall, when he said that the Opposition's quarrel with the general grant was that they did not trust the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not trust the Tory Party to make an adequate general grant, to prescribe an adequate sum. That is a fair point, but one on which we differ from him.
  However, the argument was taken a stage further today by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment, and I understand why. He exposed the true basis of the argument against the general grant. It is not really, "We do not trust the Government". It is, "We do not trust the people". That is the beginning and the end of the argument against the general grant. I do not accept that argument.
  Mr. Moss: My argument did not depend upon whether the Government reduced or increased the amount of the general grant.
  Mr. Iremonger: That is perfectly true. I exempt the hon. Member from that criticism. He did not make that point. He would have been on sounder ground if he had, because that is gist of the effective case against the Bill. The hon. Gentleman made a very fair speech but he did not make that point.
  Mr. Mitchison: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), whose speech I heard, I would assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that my hon. Friend did not say, directly or indirectly, that he did not trust the people.
  Mr. Iremonger: Naturally the hon. Gentleman did not say that, but that can be the only meaning of what he said this afternoon. If his speech had any meaning that is the meaning.
  The first of the two points I want to make tonight is in connection with the so-called "county" awards to university undergraduates. Having listened to the debates and considered the representations that have been made to me, as to other hon. Members, I do not think we are right in keeping those awards as a local authority responsibility. That service is neither compulsory under the 1944 Act nor is it sufficiently local to justify keeping it a local authority responsibility, and I hope that in the fullness of time it will be possible to make better arrangements. It remains as it is in the Bill, and does not work out very well at the moment. I hope that we shall not have to bear very long with this thoroughly unsatisfactory system.
  My most important and final point is on Clause 35, which concerns
  "Restriction on the promotion of Bills for changes of local government areas or status."
  Subsection (1) says:
  "No local authority shall have power to promote a Bill for forming any new area of local government or for altering, or altering the status of, any area of local government, before the expiration of fifteen years from the commencement of this Act."
  It goes on to provide in subsection (4):
  "Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for excluding the operation of that subsection in relation to any other part"
  280
  that is, other than the administrative county of London,
  "of the metropolitan area specified in the Order."
  These provisions will bring in the Borough of Ilford, which is concerned with its status. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was helpful in Committee in giving an assurance about the Government's intentions in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary will have in mind my anxiety about this matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to go further than he could in Committee and express in unequivocal terms what I am sure he would wish to be an assurance to local authorities who are in the position in which the Borough of Ilford now finds itself.
  My right hon. Friend said in Committee:
  "The alternative, of course, is that far one reason or another no legislation will follow the Royal Commission's Report either because the Commission has recommended nothing or because the Government having read the Report, have decided on balance not to take action."
  Then he went on to say:
  "It is quite clear that in that case a borough such as Ilford ought not to be deprived for a time of its opportunity to put its claim afresh to Parliament, and it will be only right that that opportunity should be restored."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th March, 1958; c. 958.]
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to give a positive undertaking in so many words that, in those circumstances, a borough such as Ilford will have fresh access to Parliament and will be given positive freedom to promote a Bill by Order in Council. With the assurance that stands on record at the moment we may well be in the position in years to come of saying to the Minister, "In column 958, this is what was said", and my right hon. Friend's successor will look at those words and will reply, All that was said was that the borough ought not to be deprived of its opportunity. That was a matter of opinion. It was not an undertaking".
  We have heard that kind of thing in the House of Commons before and we know how difficult it is later on to hold any Minister down to such an undertaking. The very furthest that my right hon. Friend can go now is bound to be

  281
  subject to the effluxion of time and to changes of Governments and of Parliaments. It is always possible to minimise the effect of any undertaking given. Before the Bill leaves us I hope that my right hon. Friend will make more clear this point, which most closely affects the most important non-county borough in Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I say that without any fear of contradiction. I ask that Ilford may now be given an assurance that she can accept as satisfactory in the face of the many galling disappointments and delays she has had to put up with for the last twenty years.
  6.45 p.m.
  Or. Horace King: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) had to say about university grants and the special plea that he made for the exemption of university awards from local government control. It illustrates to me the simple fact that when an hon. Member opposite is really keen on some aspect of education he realises that the general case that we are putting is a true one.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North would trust the local authorities with primary and secondary schools, but he would not trust them to make provision for university education for children within a local authority area. The difference between us is that we on this side trust the local authorities with all branches of education provided they get fair financial support. We seek to persuade the Minister to give them adequate finance on what we regard, and what for forty years the country has regarded, as a fair basis.
  I suppose that it would be ungracious not to mention the better parts of this sorry Bill It partially rerates industry and so halves the levy which the ratepayers of Britain have borne for the last thirty or forty years on behalf, among others, of the brewers of the country under the bogus claim that the brewers would be in economic difficulties if they had to pay their whole rates. The £10 million which local authorities will get from this partial rerating will, for many of them, obscure some of the worst effects of the Bill, at any rate, during the first year or two after it becomes law.
  282
  Some local authorities will regain enough from the rerating proposals in the Bill to make them better off in the first year, despite the block grant. For instance, so far as one can gather from the various hypothetical tables submitted from time to time, my own county, Hampshire, may be better off in the first year. On the other hand, local authorities, like Bournemouth, Eastbourne and Blackpool, as was pointed out last week, will endure to the full all the effects of Tory local government financial reform in the first year, and will be much worse off at once. That was why we had the little revolt from the Tory benches last week.
  We on this side of the House welcome the partial rerating proposals, but we believe that the 50 per cent. privilege which industry still enjoys is an unfair one and that it still presents a heavy burden on local ratepayers and rate finances. The Bill also makes a wise provision for a review of local government areas. Probably in some respects these provisions are inadequate. We tried in vain to amend Part II of the Bill as we sought to amend other parts of the Bill during the Committee stage discussions, but I think that, on the whole, these provisions are wise. Whatever happens to other parts of the Bill, I think that this part will last and the important work it will set in action will take a number of years and much care and thought on behalf of the commissioners, and the local authorities when making representations to the commissioners.
  I was pleased with what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say about the care which the Government will take, in appointing the commissioners for this purpose, to see that they are men of judgment and calibre. Part III of the Bill sets in motion a second great reform aimed at giving the smaller authorities a greater sense of belonging, and more responsibility and power wherever power can be handed down without jeopardising a public service. It is a compromise and I do not suppose that it pleases anybody either in the House or in the complicated Pattern of local government associations. But I believe that it represents an honest attempt, and a result of efforts made over a number of years on the part of associations representing county councils, county boroughs, municipal corporations.

  283
  district councils—and even parish councils—to move towards each other; each remaining utterly convinced of its own rectitude and utterly satisfied with its own policy and structure. I would only say about Part III that I hope that the bigger authorities will not be niggardly in their interpretation of it. On the other hand, I beg the smaller authorities not to bite off more than they can chew, or not to ask to do so.
  Having said so much about the other parts of the Bill, I come now to the heart of the matter, the iniquitous setting up of the block grant system in Clauses 1 to 4. The opportunity for amending these financial provisions is over, thanks to the stubbornness of the Minister and his determination to set the clock of education back to the days before Fisher. But for that stubbornness the right hon. Gentleman might have gone down in history, because of the other parts of the Bill, as the author of a good local government Bill and the author of an excellent Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, which would have been some compensation to set against his much inferior Rent Act.
  As it is, educationists will put the Minister in the same category as Geddes, May and Ray and, in the words of Macbeth, will speak of him with
  "curses, not loud, but deep."
  Forty years ago, on 13th March, 1918, Fisher said of the financial arrangements which he introduced and which, by this Bill, it is proposed to scrap:
  "It is possible to encourage local enterprise while taking full security against local inertia. It is possible so to work the partnership between the State and the local authority as to provide the greatest possible equality of opportunity between area and area."
  Those two high purposes were the only reasons for the change, forty years ago, from the old general grant system to the percentage grant, the system which, by this Bill, the Minister would destroy.
  Every educationist in the country, except the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, the experience of forty years and the unparalleled progress of British education, particularly since the war years, would seem to show that Fisher was right, because the record of progress in education in this country can be set boldly against the progress in any other country on this
  284
  planet in recent years. If Fisher was right, then what this Bill will achieve is exactly the opposite of those two principles. To paraphrase or invert what Fisher said, we may say about the general grant proposition that the block grant will discourage local enterprise; it will encourage local inertia and provide the least possible equality of opportunity between area and area.
  Let me try to prove this. It will discourage local enterprise, because local enterprise in education and local government has to do with the spending of money. It can be shown only by incurring expenditure above the national average on some worth-while service and any expenditure above the national average must be borne 100 per cent. by the local authorities. It will encourage local inertia because anyone in local government who goes slow, anyone who does merely what the average local authority is doing, will save the ratepayer from spending extra money every penny of which would have to come out of his own pocket. The local authority which buries its one talent in the earth—whatever the parable may say—will be rewarded. The Minister changes the old proverb and says to local authorities, "Go to the sluggard thou ant, consider her ways and be wise."
  It will be worse than that. The block grant puts a premium on dishonesty, and I use that word deliberately. Any local authority which spends less than the national average on any education service can make a profit at the expense of the State; at the expense of the Minister and at the expense of the average and progressive local authorities—not to mention at the expense of the local authority's own children. A financial incentive is provided for dishonest policy.
  Those enthusiasts in Birmingham who want to get Birmingham up to the national average in teachers per children will find the dice of rate finance loaded against them. Those who wish to lead the country in sending lads to the university, or pulling down slum schools, or cutting down the size of classes, can do so only if they themselves bear 100 per cent. of the cost of their educational generosity and wisdom, while the Minister of Education stands aside and does not offer a penny to help.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): No.
  Dr. King: Oh, yes. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to intevene I will give way.
  Sir E. Boyle: The general grant will be a forward-looking exercise. There is no reason why it should not take into account all the needs of expansion during the years ahead. Therefore, to say that any local authority which engages in educational expansion will have to provide for the whole of the increased expenditure out of the rates is going very much too far.
  Dr. King: I am sorry, but the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to understand the argument. Perhaps I have not put it clearly.
  When the general grant has been made by the Minister and his overlords, when the block grant has been fixed, the points I made are still true. The block grant, even if it is a progressive-looking block grant, will be distributed among the local education authorities according to formulae which have nothing to do with their views on education, but which have to do with their physical structure. Local authorities will receive their average share of the national grant, and anything that they propose to do above the average in the country—and authorities become progressive only when they rise above the average—they will pay for 100 per cent. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that what I am saying is perfectly true.
  Sir E. Boyle: I do not want to pursue the argument, but the hon. Gentleman has shifted his ground a little.
  Dr. King: No.
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes. The point I was making was that it is an exaggeration to make out, as the hon. Member was doing a few minutes ago, that the cost of any expenditure in the service will have to come 100 per cent. out of the rates. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying—I do not deny it—that any differential between what one local authority does and what another does will be its own responsibility. That I do not dispute, but it is a different point.
  Dr. King: I am sure that I am within the recollection of the House in what I have been arguing during the last five minutes. There will be an occasion for arguing about the nature and size of the grant before I sit down.
  Those who resist, at Burnham level, the claims of teachers for an adequate professional salary will be fortified by the block grant. I hope that the Minister, whose absence from many of these important debates is to be regrette——
  Mr. Iremonger: No.
  Dr. King: If the hon. Member for Ilford, North wishes to defend the Minister's absence from three days of debate last week on an issue which, whoever is right, divides the country regarding its effect on education, he should be ready to rise to intervene. I simply said that it is to be regretted that on an important issue like this the Minister is not present.
  As I was saying when I was interrupted by the hon. Member, who did not choose to stand to defend his interruption when invited to do so, those who resist the claims of teachers for an adequate professional salary at Burnham level will be assisted by the block grant, because when going into the negotiations nobody from the local government side can be certain that any concessions made to the teaching profession will be backed by a Government grant. I appeal to the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that when these negotiations take place the Government should clearly indicate their willingness to make financial provision for whatever extra expenditure local authorities wish to incur in Burnham negotiations.
  As for equality of opportunity, the Bill will help the rich authority against the poor authority. Great local education authorities like London will be able to spend above the national average without seriously hurting the London ratepayer. The product of a 1d. rate in London is so colossal that it will be possible for London to continue above the London average, doing some of the things which it wants to do for education.
  It will be the poor authorities which will find it impossible to spend more than the amount covered by the ministerial grant and it will be the backward authorities which will be unable to face the heavy finance of levelling up

  287
  their educational provision now that the Government's help is strictly limited. The sins of reactionary county councils of forty years ago, which have been visited on so many generations of children, will be visited on another generation of British children as a result of the incidence of the block grant.
  From now on, education has two masters—at the local level the finance committee, which up to now—and I pay tribute to my own—has dealt generously with the matter of education, but which must obviously adopt a much more conservative attitude under the influence of the block grant; and at the national level, where the Minister of Education becomes office boy of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We have watched that happening during the passage of the Bill. How the Tory Party loves to humiliate Ministers of Education! The Minister whom they once ejected from the Cabinet is back there only because of the pressure at that time from this side of the House, when the Conservative Party got into power and made one of its Cabinet reforms the exclusion of the Minister of Education.
  I see a sorry decline in the latest Minister of Education but one, Lord Hail-sham, who, had he remained in education, might have been a great force for education and who has declined so lamentably as "Minister of Propaganda." The present Minister of Education now becomes subject to an overlord whose local government record includes the leading of the Tories to the greatest disaster in their history on the London County Council until his successor beat his record less than a month ago—a Minister of Housing and Local Government whose record includes a Rent Act which has already caused the voluntary death of one poor soul in Margate. I do not trust the fate of education in the hands of a Minister of Housing and Local Government who is capable of cutting down school building programmes, as he has recently cut down local council housing programmes, including that in Southampton.
  What is the background against which we must consider this reactionary proposal? What is the educational picture at present? I will choose one authority—not mine, but Somerset—to take a typical example. In The Times Educa-
  288
  tional Supplement for this week Somerset has reported that next year admissions to the county's secondary schools will be the highest ever recorded. Its secondary schools will be overcrowded and further emergency measures are needed to accommodate pupils in huts and similar places.
  The Times Educational Supplement says that the Somerset local authority has strong feelings about Ministry of Education Circular 331 and the cuts already made by the Government in its programme:
  "Among other things it will make it necessary practically to suspend the Committee's improvement programme for school sanitation."
  This is because the sanitation programme has been cut by the Government from £10,000 to £1,000. Eleven schools under that authority still use pails or Swanmore closets, and in all those 11 schools, says the report, it would have been possible to provide waterborne sanitation if money had been available. It is the Government who have cut out the waterborne sanitation programme of the Somerset local authority, who are given the power under the Bill to decide the size of the block grant. Whitehall, not Somerset, decides the checking of the advance towards modern sanitation in Somerset.
  Every local authority in the country at present faces similar cuts by the Government in school reorganisation, in new schools, in sanitation provision and in minor and major building programmes. It is true that in future the local authorities have the consolation that they can build what they like provided they find the whole of the money themselves and provided the Government relax their capital building programme, which they are not very likely to do. Local authorities will be free, just as Anatole France said the poorest citizen was as free as the richest to engage learned counsel when on trial, provided he could pay out of his own pocket.
  This Bill ties the hands of every education enthusiast in the country and of the education committees' teachers and education officers. Let me interject a tribute to the education officers of this country, who have built up such a magnificent service in the last forty years. The Bill ties the hands of all who are imbued

  289
  with the idea of carrying out the great implications of the 1944 Act. It ties them by making educational progress and the achievement of their dreams a heavy burden on the ratepayer. And this at a time when rate burdens are already becoming excessive and are already inequitable and unjust in the incidence they bear on different citizens.
  The truth of the educational position was superbly and succinctly stated last week by The Times Educational Supplement. It is rare to find so many truths in so few words. It said:
  "We are not spending enough on education. Too many classes are still too big. Too many school buildings are still depressing. Most of the money goes, quite rightly, in teachers' pay, and this is not only the biggest but also the most important expense. We need more teachers, so we shall have to spend more money. We need better teachers, and one way of getting them is to pay more for them. On this count alone anyone who thinks of cutting what we spend on education is being irresponsible."
  I admit that the Government will not cut educational expenditure. They could not and they dare not. The Parliamentary Secretary has used the same expression this afternoon. But what I have just quoted means that it is not enough simply not to cut education. Education is still, and must be for quite a time, an expanding service. Educational expenditure must rise tremendously in the years ahead if we are to have adequate buildings, adequate teachers and adequate provision for the vastly increased child population.
  Rate finance cannot stand the burden which education calls for. Already education absorbs more than half the local authorities' budget and teachers' salaries more than half the local education budget. It is because education looms so large in the block grant—more than four-fifths of it—and because we know the fundamental aim of the Government in introducing it and because we value highly not only education but also local government that we believe this to be a thoroughly bad Measure.
  If the Government really believe that this is good for local government and education, let the police and the roads share in its benefits. If we dare not endanger civil protection and road safety to the freedom of paying 100 per cent. for police and road improvements, how
  290
  wicked it is that we should endanger our children in this way.
  I end by congratulating all who believe in the 1944 Act for the great fight they have waged against the block grant. I had not the honour to serve on the Standing Committee, so I can speak from outside and pay my tribute to the work of my right hon. and hon. Friends, day in and day out, in seeking to remove it from the Bill. A battle for truth and right never really fails, and one of the results of the fight upstairs, and the campaign in the country—and educationists have campaigned, on this not very easy topic to discuss in public, ever since the White Paper came out—has been to step up the size of the block grant.
  I am confident—and I speak personally in this matter—that when the General Election comes along the Conservative Party will lose in one swoop not only the General Election but also the general grant. The Government which follow it will not repeal the whole of the Bill, but will certainly reintroduce into British education the grants system which was introduced years ago by Fisher, upon which the glorious progress of the past forty years has been made. If that happens, we shall more speedily move towards the implementation of the 1944 Act, and the spirit of Fisher will smile again.
  Mr. Iremonger: Is the hon. Member saying that this is now what his party proposes to do? We understood that its policy had not yet been decided. It would be interesting to know whether this is his party's policy.
  Dr. King: The hon. Member will know that I can speak only for myself. The policy of the party to which I belong is decided at annual conference.
  Mr. Iremonger: A pious hope.
  Dr. King: I hope that when the annual conference comes the answer to the hon. Member's question will also come—and I hope that it will be the answer that I have indicated.
  The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from the remainder of this day's Sitting.
  Whereupon Sir CHARLES MACANDREW, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I apologise to the House for not having heard every word of the debate, but I think that even those who have not listened to the fervent words of the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) will know that the Bill has been under substantial attack from many people who are interested in education. But only too often, I am afraid, a case which is worthy of serious consideration is damaged by gross exaggeration. Many of my hon. Friends have received deputations and letters from people suggesting that the members of local education authorities want to tear down the structure of education, damage our school system and tear the textbooks out of our children's hands or take the gym shoes off their feet.
  This is absolute nonsense. In the last few years local councillors, in partnership with a Conservative Government, have vastly increased the expenditure on education, but when the alarmist smoke blows away many responsible people will still be worried about various aspects of the block grant. Perhaps the most serious charge against this Part of the Bill was best made by the Times Educational Supplement, in that famous leading article of 7th February which has been quoted so often with approval by my hon. and right hon. Friends.
  But, in a part which is not so often quoted by my hon. Friends, it is suggested that it is a national Government which can best set the national priorities in education, and that by going on to a completely objective block grant system the central Government are forfeiting powers not of coercion but of leadership. I accept the force of that argument. On the other hand, it is, I think, demonstrable that a percentage grant, as we have had it in the past, is a direct incentive to extravagance and waste.
  I cannot forget the time that I spent on the London County Council Education Committee. I particularly remember our approval of an expenditure of £12,000 for one prefabricated house-craft classroom. I do not want to go into the intricacies of the London property market, but at that time it was possible to buy, freehold, in a so-called "good" area of London, an exceedingly comfortable house, with a large garden, for just that amount of money which the
  292
  County Council was proposing to spend upon one classroom.
  Contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Itchen, I believe that a percentage grant gives most help to those authorities which have the most. The hon. Member referred to the case of Somerset, which is a relatively badly off education authority, and cited various improvements which could be made in that area. I agree, but let us consider what is happening in London. Only the other day a proposal was made in the L.C.C. Education Committee that a dictaphone should be provided for every headmaster and headmistress in the London County Council area, at a cost of about £20,000. However desirable the provision of dictaphones may be, can anyone suggest that that sort of expenditure is anything but a frill, and that a percentage grant encourages that sort of expenditure by the richest authorities? On the contrary, the block grant system will lead to greater equality between the richer and the poorer areas.
  I am sorry, however, that the Government have not made greater efforts to meet the fears of the educationists. Some of my hon. Friends have tabled an Amendment which would enable the Government to make certain incentive payments—granted, they will be small ones—to those local authorities which have made substantial efforts on the lines laid down by the central Government. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will find it possible to accept that Amendment.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. James MacColl: While it is in my mind, I should like to dispose of the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). There is no evidence—nobody has produced a tittle—to suggest that the percentage grant encourages extravagance by either education committees or any other local authority committees. All the evidence is to the contrary, as all the committees which have examined the matter have discovered.
  The hon. Member threw his case away by producing a ridiculous example about dictaphones. I do not know whether the London County Council bought dicta-phones or not. However. I can think of very good reasons why it might be a wise thing to do. For instance, clerical

  293
  assistance is very difficult to obtain, and if we are to have it economically we must have a group of schools being served by the same secretary. It is very difficult for a head teacher to plan his time-table if he has to be available at a certain time when the secretary is present. I should have thought that it would make education much more efficient, enable head teachers to teach in their schools and lead to the economical deployment of secretarial staff if one had a capital investment in dictaphones, for once they are bought they will last. That seems an extremely good reason for buying them.
  Mr. Goodhart: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that dicta-phones are an integral part of our education system and not a frill?
  Mr. MacColl: What the hon. Gentleman understands me to say is that wise expenditure of money on a service produces a good and efficient service and that parsimony and being afraid to invest money is as bad for a social service as for a business. If it is right for someone to invest money in providing dictaphones in a business in order to get the most economical use of highly skilled people, it is right to do it in a social service.
  I do not know how the story ended; I do not know whether the London County Council bought dictaphones or not. That does not matter. What matters is that the hon. Gentleman demonstrated clearly what he really wants to do behind a façade of cutting out frills is to cut down the efficiency of education and waste the time of teachers, leaving them in bad working conditions, in order to save a little money.
  I had hoped not to begin on that note but as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) began by exploring certain items of agreement with the Government about the Bill. I have been able to find three things in the Bill about which I agree. First, the Government are entitled to take credit, for they have shown considerable energy and courage in bringing forward a Bill to tackle local government re-organisation. We have spent far too long messing about with the problem. It was not an easy thing for the Government to do this. It was not likely to produce political
  294
  dividends. My view is that the Government have shown a great deal of determination in bringing forward the Bill, and I hope it will succeed. I hope that the local government commissions will succeed. I trust that they will not be too timid in their efforts.
  I am a little uncertain whether the basic principle will work, that of delegation to local authorities with populations of 60,000, because, as I said in Standing Committee, I am uncertain whether delegation works at all. I hope it can be made to work, but my fear is that it will lead to frustration, that it will not be the final answer to the problem and that we may have to examine the problem again to ascertain whether conferment of powers upon authorities will not be more effective than delegation. As we have now reached this stage after our thirty-one days in the wilderness, I do not want to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from reaching the promised land, and if these parts of the Bill can be made to work I shall welcome it.
  The second thing in the Bill that welcome is that the right hon. Gentleman has started with the special review areas. He was right to do so. I do not believe that we can solve the problem of local government until we decide what to do with the special review areas. I believe it will be a long business, but the Government are right to have the timing in their Bill.
  In Standing Committee, I pressed the right hon. Gentleman about model schemes of delegation. He said it was a matter upon which he had not received any great expressions of desire from local authorities. I imagine that the Ministry of Education is exploring the possibilities of model schemes, and I hope the Minister will say something on this subject if he is able to do so.
  There is a third thing in the Bill with which I agree. I am prepared to make the concession that there is a lot to be said for having a bigger block element in the grant. There is nothing sacrosanct about the existing proportions which the block grant and the percentage grant bear to each other in the total amount which local authorities receive. The present situation arises largely from historical reasons, changes in the value of money and so on, and there is nothing sacrosanct about it. Therefore, if what the right

  295
  hon. Gentleman had done had been to say that we want to increase the proportion of central government grant based on a block formula in relation to the percentage element, I should have found it very difficult to quarrel with him.
  But the right hon. Gentleman has gone very much further than that. In the main bulk of the services, the services which will be most sensitive to economy, he has abolished the percentage grant altogether, and for that I think nothing can be said. In order to try to hide the dangers of this, he had to get into more and more complexities in devising complicated formulae. After all, a percentage grant is simple and straightforward. One recognises that expenditure is necessary, and the Government pay their share. That is a simple operation which everybody can undertsand. But when we get highly complicated formulae which nobody can understand, local government ceases to be rational, because no one knows the basis upon which he is working.
  When talking about the rate deficiency grant in Standing Committee, I ventured to criticise its complexity, and when we were asking for some information about how the rate deficiency grant would work, I used a phrase which, I think, rather shocked some of my hon. Friends. I said that we wanted to be able to look at the figures which the Government were to produce for the rate deficiency grant
  "so that when we know what the Government intend, and have before us the figures which will show us the result of Government policy, we can say, 'There is something wrong with the formula. Somebody must have made a mistake in the "damned dots" because it cannot be right that Bournemouth should be getting ten times as much as Widnes'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th February, 1958; c. 283.]
  The phrase "the damned dots" was regarded as if it were a little frivolous and unduly disregarding the great skill with which the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers were approaching the problem.
  Therefore, I was rather intrigued to discover a report by a borough treasurer—not the borough treasurer of Widnes—from which it appeared that in a document from the Ministry to explain how much rate deficiency grant his local authority would get, a figure of more
  296
  than £100,000 was quoted. Subsequently there came this report to the finance committee:
  "On failing to agree …"
  the figures which had been given—
  "… I contacted the Ministry who later informed me that owing to an error in a decimal place, the figures printed in their publication are wrong. My report should therefore show …".
  A figure just over £10,000 was quoted. The Ministry had got their "damned dots" wrong—not just over £100,000 but just over £10,000.
  That is the kind of unfortunate slip which is one of many sorts of things which can go wrong in dealing with this complicated grant, and it is the sort of thing which drives a local authority finance committee off its head when trying to make up its mind how much money it will have to spend, how much it will have coming in and what expenditure it ought to incur.
  It is quite true, as some really gullible hon. Member opposite said, that the great advantage of the block grant is that the central Government know exactly how much they will be let in for. That is perfectly true, but what is also perfectly true is that local authorities have no idea what they are going to get, and in many cases cannot work it out. Take, in particular, the rate-deficiency grant. How can a local authority, when it wants to make up its mind whether it can afford an item of expenditure, decide whether or not it is going to get grant? Because the expenditure will affect normal expenditure. Normal expenditure is not necessarily based on the expenditure of that authority itself, but may be based on the average of the expenditure of authorities of that type. In other words, when it has spent the money it is going to be told some time afterwards whether or not it is going to have any rate-deficiency grant at all on that bit of expenditure. I think I am right about that.
  I am not surprised. After all, in a Government who believe that we can solve the whole problem of investment by means of Premium Bonds, it is not really surprising to find that they think they can solve all the problems of local government finance by having a kind of gigantic sweep, at the end of which, if a local authority is lucky, it gets back

  297
  in grant the amount of expenditure, or if it is unlucky, finds that its expenditure has gone over the normal ceiling and that therefore it gets no grant on it at all. This is the kind of way in which this Government, who have been talking in sanctimonious terms about trusting the local authorities and freeing the local authorities, are treating them.
  I cannot sit down without saying something about the general grant in relation to education. There has been some idea—indeed, I think somebody on the other side of the House used such a phrase—that this was calculated in objective terms and therefore was something which was quite clear and could be relied upon That is not true at all. What will happen with the general grant is not that the Government will fix various weights to different elements of the formulae and then see what the sum at the end is and then pay that over. They are going to work in the opposite direction. They are going to decide how much they are prepared to pay in grants and then work out the formula to fit the gross sum.
  That was more or less admitted by the Minister when resisting a proposal made in Standing Committee that we should have separate orders for the separate elements in the formulae. He said, "Oh, no, we cannot do that because all the elements have to be integrated together to make certain not too much is got as a result of them." What is going to happen is that the Government will decide as part of their general economic and financial policy what they can afford to give to local authorities. That is why everybody was delighted, because this formula will make central Government finance so very much easier. Of course, the corollary to making central Government finance so very much easier is to make local government finance so very much more difficult.
  The responsibility for unpopular political decisions is going to fall on the shoulders of the local authorities. That is the really cowardly thing about Part I of the Bill. Whatever the Government may say it their expansive moods about developing this or that social service—the supply of teachers, for instance—and all the rest of it, the unhappy decision of what they can afford to do and what they cannot, falls on the local authorities, and the central Government contract out by
  298
  saying, "That work is not our responsibility. We are not responsible for carrying out those services." Whatever the Government may say, they are, of course, stopping that work, because they are fixing the amount of the aggregate sum of the general grant, and they are fixing it, as I say, as part of their general economic policy. That seems to me a miserable thing to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen criticised the Minister of Education for not taking part in these proceedings. I had not realised until after making a diligent search through Vacher that there was a Minister of Education. We have not seen or heard him at all. There was a tremendous amount of blowing of trumpets at the time the Lord President of the Council was Minister of Education. In those days education was to boom. We were going to have a great campaign for education. I suggest that, following, I suppose, the instinct for survival, about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke today, the Lord President thought it more important to save the Tory Party than to save the schools. Judging by the mess he has made of saving the Tory Party, I am rather glad he is no longer trying to save the schools. However, since those days we seem to have neither heard nor seen any sign of the existence of a Minister of Education. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] I rather thought that it must be the Foreign Secretary. I am not quite certain about that.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education was not permitted to escape. The Parliamentary Secretary has got to purge his contempt over Suez. He has not been allowed to escape from education. He has got to stay and see this beastly business through, and so, while the Lord President can go off to another job and keep his reputation as a reformer, the wretched Parliamentary Secretary is left to see this thing through.
  We had the extraordinary spectacle in Standing Committee that this matter, which affects the vital development of all the social services and the whole of local government, was handled by the right hon. Gentleman and three Parliamentary Secretaries supporting him. We had one Parliamentary Secretary who quite obviously believed fervently in the briefs he was given but showed no signs

  299
  of having read them, another Parliamentary Secretary who had read them and studied them meticulously and did not believe them at all, and another Parliamentary Secretary who showed no sign of having read them or understood them or of believing in them.
  I can quite understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government talks so feelingly about the instinct in politicians for survival, because he must find his right hon. Friend a very awkward bedfellow. If ever there was a person dedicated to self-martyrdom, or in translation to another place, whichever it may be——
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The same thing.
  Mr. MacColl: —it is the right hon. Gentleman. He has obviously got to the stage where he cares not at all for his political reputation, but surely it is a tragic and sad thing that somebody as indifferent as he has shown himself to be to the social services should have been left in charge of a Bill of this sort, and left, as I say, with the assistance of three Parliamentary Secretaries but with neither of the two Ministers who are responsible for these services being present in the Committee or in the House on Report stage to defend the policy which is behind this Bill.
  Why should this be regarded as purely a question of finance, purely a question for the Minister of Housing and Local Government? After all, the main grants of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are not affected at all. Such as they are, in respect of housing they are not affected by the Bill. Where the brunt of the financial provisions of this Bill will be felt is in education and public health, and I should have thought that we were entitled to see the Ministers responsible for those services present to defend them.
  I suggest to the House that the only thing we can do with this Bill is to reject it, not because it has not got certain inherent good things in it, for I think it has, but because the philosophy behind the main Part is to use the good things as a cloak behind which to apply a financial stranglehold on local authorities. It is all very well to say we are giving them
  300
  freedom. Unless we are prepared to give them a more flexible system of local government finance not limited by rates the Government must be ready to bear a full financial share of the expenditure in which the local authorities are engaged. They must be prepared to bear financial responsibility not only in the aggregate but in the detailed development of services.
  However one may try to hide it, the fact remains that when any local authority comes to face the question, "Should we spend money on this or not?" after the Bill is passed, all the arguments for economy and saving of rates will favour the cutting out of expenditure. Nothing will be lost thereby; it will not affect one's grant if any expenditure is cut out. On the other hand, as I said before, it may very well endanger one's grant if one expands expenditure too quickly because one may then go beyond the belt of normal expenditure.
  All the way through the Bill, once a course is steered as well as may be through all its technicalities and complications, the emphasis is on an attempt to throttle down local government expenditure and to do it with the minimum of political responsibility, putting upon the local councils responsibility for doing the dirty work of the Government in cutting down and starving the social services.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: It is a very great pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), because I know that he has a tremendous interest in local government. When he began his speech, I thought that he and I would find a great deal of common ground. He welcomed the reorganisation of local government which is an integral part of the Bill. I go all the way with him there. He welcomed the tackling of the review of the special review areas. Here again, we find common ground. He even went some way in regard to the block grant, saying that there should be a bigger element of block grant in the grant. But there, I am afraid, our points of common interest diverged somewhat, because the hon. Gentleman then made a vigorous attack on the block grant, saying that it would work against any improvement in the education services which had hitherto been brought about.

  301
  The hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) attacked the block grant, but he admitted that, since the war, there had been continuous progress in education. For the last seven years, this Government have been responsible for education. If the progress and improvement in education has been continuous over these years, as I believe it to have been, then the party and Government which I have the honour to support should have credit for the big hand they have had in that progress. From my knowledge of the present Government, I believe that they have no desire to go back on that policy of steady support for education, and I believe that the fears of educationists throughout the country will prove unfounded. Of course, when one has become used to a system based on percentage grants, any change arouses suspicion. Nevertheless, I am certain that the change will come about with greater smoothness and effectiveness than many people suggest.
  Part I of the Bill contains the great financial provisions, including the rerating of industry to the extent of 50 per cent. I believe that this is getting things just about right. It doubles the rate burden on industry. When points are made about larger firms, perhaps, being able to meet a greater burden, the reply can equally be made, as it was made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary today after he read out a telegram from the cotton industry, that many industries would be put in grave difficulties if a further burden were added to their costs by pushing rerating any higher. Smaller industrial concerns would be very seriously affected if rerating were increased to an extent greater than the 50 per cent. proposed. I believe that the Government's proposal is the right one and that a sensible balance will be achieved.
  As to the general grant itself, if one takes that proposal in conjunction with Clause 2 (1) of the Bill, which envisages
  "any probable fluctuation in the demand for services …"
  and
  "the need for developing those services"
  an adequate safeguard is seen to be contained in the Bill to deal with any fluctuations which may occur. I believe, however, that there is one overriding factor without which the Bill will not
  302
  work. This is the ability and keenness of local representatives to take responsibility. I have in mind here the governing principle which will guide the commissions which are to review the special review areas and the county boroughs. This governing principle is that they shall bring about
  "effective and convenient local government"
  I do not myself think that "convenience" is a very strong word, but it is a very effective word. I do not envisage that the commissions will think solely of the convenience of administration or the convenience of layout of the services in the areas concerned. I do not think that they will have particularly in mind as a governing consideration the areas which the new authorities are to encompass.
  There is one matter of convenience which has not previously been referred to in any detail, the convenience of those men and women, the voluntary workers, who go to make up the material of our councils. Dare I refer to them as the great unpaid element in local government? They have taken on the duties originally laid on the justices of the peace in the reign of Edward III. The persons engaged in local government today are the natural successors, the unpaid successors, of the justices of the peace who, in those bygone days, carried out the responsibilities of what we know as local government. I believe that, unless we take fully into consideration in the reconstruction of local government the convenience of those men and women—not their ability to do the work but their ability to carry their responsibilities and be able conveniently to reach their city hall, town hall or county hall—they will not be able to perform their duties in such a way as to make the mechanism of local government work.
  The Bill as a whole provides, as it were, a magnificent chassis upon which local government may be built. In this House we are building only the chassis. Later, when the commissions get to work and local government is reformed, the bodywork will be put on to that chassis. I stress that the basic mechanism in the Bill is good. When the chassis is clothed with the bodywork and the local councils mount this new great vehicle of local government, it will be seen then that we have produced a sound vehicle.

  303
  I look forward to the time when that vehicle, having been furbished overall, will go forward into the future bearing local government upon it. The pattern of local government which will be borne by that vehicle will be a pattern of which we, who have taken part in its design through this Bill, will be proud.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Who pays for the petrol?
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Howell: The description of local government by the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was interesting and illuminating. One moment local government was on the back of the chassis and the next moment one wondered where it was. The important thing for local government is that the chassis should be well lubricated and the vehicle well stocked with fuel. [An HON. MEMBER: "Horsepower is important."] The horsepower of the engine has, under the Government, been running down continuously. As for the driver, there are grave doubts whether he ought to be prosecuted for criminally negligent driving. That is a matter upon which the jury at large will pronounce their verdict as soon as they possibly can be given the opportunity.
  Having listened to the Second Reading debate and the debates in Committee, we are back to the very foundation of the Government's policy as enunciated in the White Paper about a year ago, from which we recall that the percentage grant system is an indiscriminate incentive to further expenditure. It was upon that rock that the Government based the whole of their case and their proposals and from which there is no doubt we have been unable to move them. We must ask ourselves whether the percentage grant system has been so indiscriminate or so bad to the country to date.
  The hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester gloried in the fact that we have had seven years of Conservative control, under which we have had a progressive education system. The fact is that we have had an education system under a percentage grant system. Some of us are far from satisfied with regard to education because there has been
  304
  a holding back centrally of education for many reasons. Nevertheless, whatever has been achieved to the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends has been achieved under the percentage grant system. Therefore, there is a big onus on him to disprove the advantage of the percentage grant system in claiming the credit for what has been done under it.
  Mr. Temple: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this improvement has been broadly under a Tory Government? It was admittedly under a percentage grant system, but it was brought in under a Conservative Government and I have every confidence that the progress will continue.
  Mr. Howell: One of the reasons why this fundamental change has been proposed to us is that where there is a percentage grant system it is open to local authorities and Members of Parliament who take an interest in and try to represent their local authorities' point of view to argue the individual merits of particular cases. Let us consider individual cases confronting a local authority, such as, shall we have a new grammar school or pull down the slum school, or do we need the health centre? The Government can ride off that individual analysis by saying, "We have no responsibility for this matter. This is for local autonomy under the new Bill".
  I, personally, do not object to some degree of central planning, because I think that the Government must from time to time say that the emphasis should be here or there in their local government services. But, nevertheless, the corollary of that system is that public opinion and the important opinion of local authorities and hon. Members can be brought to bear and focused on individual projects. Those of us who have had anything to do with local government, and have joined in deputations to various Ministries, realise how important a part that has played in the progress that has been made hitherto. It will be very difficult indeed to maintain.
  In the 31 sittings that we have had upstairs not a single piece of evidence has been produced to show that the percentage grant system does not work. That is a most important consideration. No Minister and no hon. Member opposite

  305
  has been able to show that there are in this country men and women serving on local authorities dedicated to the task of wasting the money of the ratepayer or taxpayer. When local authorities, under the percentage grant system, get down to determining what scheme they wish to proceed with they bear in mind the important fact that 40 per cent. of the cost of it has to be found from the rates. They are answerable to the ratepayers and are unlikely to use money indiscriminately any more than a Minister sitting in his office in Whitehall.
  Today, we have had this very sorry exhibition of an hon. Member who said that the L.C.C. intends to supply its headmasters with dictaphones, which, in his view, is an example of a frill or waste in education. Apparently, automation is to find no place in education, according to hon. Members opposite. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) dealt with this point very fully and I do not intend to go into it in detail. It is important that headmasters should be relieved of these burdens. Head teachers who decide to do no more teaching themselves, and become purely administrators, are a great loss and are doing great harm as far as their establishments are concerned.
  If the L.C.C. has introduced dictaphones—and it is certainly the first I have heard of it—I congratulate it upon a very sensible step which is in line with what industry is doing and what any sensible person would want to have done. The fact that this is the only sort of example which can be produced is indicative of the paucity of argument on the other side in these matters.
  We know that what the Government hope to obtain by this Bill is to place a ceiling upon expenditure for local government. They have no consideration at all for the problems that are left behind. Indeed, to a certain extent they say that they wish to abdicate from them and that they wish to have local autonomy. I dealt on Second Reading at some length with the corollary of the proposition that the Government wished to give more freedom to local authorities. There are at least 20 various Orders—such as those in respect of education, health, the fire service, town planning
  306
  and school crossing patrols—which govern what local authorities have to do.
  I have asked, and other of my hon. Friends have asked since, whether the Government are sincere in their wish to give local authorities more autonomy, what proposals they propose to introduce in respect of these various Orders. We have not been told about any proposals that the Government intend. We have had no details. Local authorities will be just as rigidly controlled in education. The restrictions in respect of the school health service, the school dental service, the size and scope of the further education service, the school grant orders which remain in force, laying down the size of classes, the amount of space and the amount of playing fields facilities, will still remain, in my view, rightly so, upon local authorities.
  If they remain it is not open to hon. Members or to the Minister to say that they are giving autonomy to local authorities, because they know perfectly well that that is completely impracticable. Furthermore, they know, as we all know, that out of the provisions in the Bill 80 per cent. of the expenditure is in respect of education, and that of that 80 per cent. 60 per cent. is in respect of teachers' salaries, which are outside the control of local authorities entirely.
  This really is a hollow claim which has been completely disproved, and which the Government have not sought in Committee or in the proceedings in this House to justify in any detail. This Measure will mean that we shall have one service set against another in our local councils throughout the country. There will be only a certain amount of money, and the claims of the educational world for increased services will have to be fought out hard against the Health Service for expanding services in their field. This is not the kind of argument which will encourage people to come forward into local government or which is conducive to the best form of local government.
  If we look for a moment at the schemes which govern the membership of education committees throughout the country, we see that local education authorities are controlled by all sorts of interests. We see that membership of a local authority is certainly an important one, but not the only one. There have to be so many people practising in education,

  307
  so many people practising from the religious aspect, so many people representing the women's point of view, and so on. Many of these people, by virtue of these schemes, do not serve upon local authorities at all, and, therefore, they will be operating in an educational vacuum, completely unrelated to the problems to which the serving council members on the committee will have to have regard vis-à-vis the health services, and so on.
  The greatest claim that can be made against these poposals is that they will produce a system of stagnation in education. When I contemplate the great problems that are now before us in the country, I fail to see how these block grant proposals will assist in solving them. For instance, the tasks that lie immediately ahead in education are considerable. There is the need to abolish the slum schools. Those who serve in cities such as Birmingham know how great an impression that makes upon us. In my own constituency, I have had the unfortunate prospect of seeing our chairman of the local education committee and members of the church arguing whether a particular school in my division is the worst-run school in the city or not. How unedifying it is that we have now got down to a question of degrees of slovenliness of our schools. We know that there is a formidable job in clearing the slum schools. There is also a formidable job in the maintenance of old schools to stop them from becoming slum schools, and that needs money.
  Then there is the school bulge, which cries out more and more for more technical school places and more grammar school places. We are one of those authorities which is well below the national average and in Birmingham, on which the future industrial prosperity of the country depends to a considerable extent, we have far fewer technical schools and grammar school places than we ought to have. This is a problem which requires attention and which requires an expanding service.
  There is the need to reduce the size of classes. I have visited every secondary-modern school in my division in the last eighteen months and I am now trying to visit the primary schools. It is most distressing to go into classes of 40, 50 and more pupils, and to wonder how a teacher can cope with such a situation. It means
  308
  more classrooms, more school places to deal with this problem.
  Finally, and most important of all, is the need to pay the teachers higher salaries. This is something I have said in public elsewhere and I am pleased to repeat it in this House. In my view, on any judgment in 1958 the teaching profession is sadly underpaid. Somebody has to take a decision. If we are to have the atmosphere which this Bill will create, of fighting for every penny of our local authority, what reaction will this bring, for example, from the local authority representatives who sit on the Burnham Committee?
  Will they face the prospect of saying, "Yes, it is quite right. To get better qualified and more men into the teaching profession we will pay a wage commensurate with their abilities and with their long training and in relation to what they can get in industry"? Will they say that? They will know that every penny extra they pay the teachers must be hard fought for at a local election by means of obtaining rates. Indeed, the secret of this has been given away again at the local authority elections which we have just had throughout the country.
  All over the country there has been a campaign by Conservative local government candidates saying, Vote Conservative and we will cut the rates". This theme has turned up everywhere, in London, in Birmingham, in the North, in industrial and in rural areas. It has been so persistent that one is driven to the inescapable conclusion that this is central Tory Party policy being pursued in local government elections. We must conclude that they really think they can cut the rates, and this can only mean, as a result of the proposals in the Bill, by cutting the services at a time when everybody in local government and in this House, knows that they need to expand more than ever before. My hon. Friends are right. I think that the teaching profession is right. The Bill, especially the proposal for the block grant to finance education, is bad and can do no possible good to local government services. Indeed, the prospect is that the Bill will be doing them a considerable amount of harm.
  Now I want to turn for a moment to another aspect of the Bill, about which I had something to say in Committee but with which I want to deal now because I

  309
  think some of my hon. Friends believe that the Government are entitled to some credit here. It is the question of the future special review areas or the conurbations, as they have come to be known. I do not want to put forward a specific proposal which was debated in another place, but on the Third Reading we have to look at what is left behind, and what is left behind is that we have the six special areas of the country, one of which I know very well, namely, the West Midlands, where, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss), the area involved is 275 square miles. Those are 275 square miles of absolutely built-up land. I object most strongly to the fact that the Government are proposing to set up a conurbation, to appoint commissions of inquiry to look into those local government boundaries. The fact is that they are not instructing those commissions—they have no idea of doing so—to look at the problems in that area before propounding a solution.
  This is a most unscientific and ridiculous way in which to deal with this question. If we look for a moment at the West Midlands we see that Birmingham is completely built up. There are 60,000 people there homeless and on the housing register. A great slum clearance scheme is now in hand, whereby for every five houses demolished only three families can be rehoused, because of the lower densities that are required.
  If we go outside Birmingham into the Black Country we find that the position is even worse. Places like West Bromwich and Smethwick have been built up long ago and have absolutely no land with which to solve their problems. It is true we have Solihull and Sutton Cold-field, but they are limited in the amount of land available. Then we have parts of Meriden known as Castle Bromwich and Kingshurst. I am happy to say that we have received from Birmingham a considerable degree of co-operation, but even there there is little scope for much more housing to be carried out.
  The Government have not started, as the Parliamentary Secretary himself admitted in Committee, their review of these special areas from the point of view of asking themselves the question, or getting these commissions of inquiry to ask themselves the question: what are the problems? I cannot but think that it is a ridiculous performance, and a
  310
  waste of time to start juggling with local government boundaries and amalgamating boroughs, if the necessity for looking at the problem and trying to determine the solution is to be completely excluded, as it is under the Bill. We shall save a few pounds here and there by amalgamating one or two police forces and fire brigades, and I have no doubt that that will mean some saving to the local authorities concerned; but it will not cope with the major matter, which is the planning and the housing of industry and the homeless in the West Midlands conurbation.
  It is perfectly true that the commission can add to the 275 square miles the area immediately surrounding it, but I certainly hope that it will not agree to do that, because the area immediately surrounding it is a green belt area. All of us who believe in town planning would be completely appalled at the prospect of the continued spread of a conurbation such as that of the West Midlands. Those of us who believe in planning, who believe in preserving the good things in life and the open countryside, which should be accessible to people living in conurbations, insist on maintaining the green belt. If we are to maintain it, we must bring some hope of a solution to their problem to the hundreds of thousands—I think there are at least 150,000—homeless families in the West Midlands conurbation, rather than leave them without any hope at all of a solution.
  How do the Government intend to house these people? In turning down the various suggestions which many of us have made, the Government have not given one word of hope that they are going to bring some help to these homeless families. How do they intend to spur on local authorities to reach agreement with others, and how are they to persuade those local authorities which are backward and think that it is a bad thing to bring homeless people from the West Midlands into their areas? How do they intend, under the Bill or by means of the existing provisions, to bring hope and the prospect of homes to all the people who do not have them at present? I do not view with any pleasure at all the chances that the special areas commission may achieve a worth-while settlement of this problem, because the commission is specifically excluded from looking at it.

  311
  Therefore, taking it all round, I view this Bill with some dismay, and with my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight will have the opportunity of voting against it. We are well aware that the mess which the Government are leaving in the field of local government will be one more gigantic problem to be left to the next Labour Government. The sooner that such a Government have the opportunity of dealing with it the better it will be for the country and for all the services involved.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I hope that when my name appears on the indicator in the Dining Room, it will not spoil the appetite of my right hon. Friend the Minister, because from time to time we have not always seen eye to eye. However, if he were here I could assure him that my few words and reflections on the Local Government Bill will not cause him any concern.
  This is a Bill which, at its birth, must have had very few friends indeed. I very much doubt if any Minister at any time could have produced a Local Government Bill which would have been received kindly by the great majority of this House or by Parliament. My right hon. Friend undoubtedly undertook a task in which it was impossible to please, but I think we must look at the result, if we possibly can, more quietly perhaps than we have done up to now and with less fighting spirit than was shown in the Committee stage upstairs.
  If the Bill is to do any good at all, and I believe that it is the ardent desire of both sides of this House that it should, then—I was going to say the fight, but I will not say fight—the vigilance of all must be transferred from this House to the various council chambers throughout the country. The local authorities must look at this Bill, when it comes to them, in a spirit of co-operation, excluding party points and party gains.
  One hon. Gentleman opposite a little while ago used the word "survival," and I believe that if we go into this matter locally from now on bickering, fighting and thereby endeavouring, as we should be in doing that, to injure education, we shall do a very great disservice to our country in general. I cannot imagine that either side of this House would desire
  312
  that that should happen. Obviously, the time has now come when our opinions, which have been different up to now, must blend together when this Bill becomes law, as it soon will. There is not the silghtest doubt that tonight the vote will help this Bill along to its ultimate stage.
  Mr. Fernyhough: What about a General Election?
  Mr. Lagden: If we have a General Election, I hardly think that even the facetious hon. Member opposite would endeavour at that stage to try to reverse things so quickly, without giving a trial to a system which, in my opinion, will succeed admirably in the country.
  There has been almost a challenge this evening to hon. Members on this side to show where at any time there has been any evidence at all of expenditure being incurred unnecessarily. I should like to give the House the benefit of some experience which I have had over the last twelve years in local government. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served on committees of councils and county councils will recognise the scene round the table, where the learned clerk of the committee has said that a certain scheme would cost x number of pounds, say, £40,000 or £50,000. Immediately, a voice has piped up to say, "Does it rank for grant?" If the clerk has said, "Yes", then with very great enthusiasm the discussion has gone forward. On many occasions, however, when the clerk has said, "No, it does not rank for grant", a wry voice has been heard. Members have said, "Well, it is a pity", and the scheme has been deferred, irrespective of its merits. Time and time again, that has happened.
  Under this new scheme, I believe that that will not happen. I believe that we shall induce a better type of man to go into local government, and I hope that such people will examine these schemes on their merits. I fully believe that the individual ratepayer will thus get a better deal than he has had up to now, but only if those who are elected are responsible people.
  It has been suggested that certain areas—I think they have been described as backward areas—will not spend the right amount of money on this or that service and, in particular, on education. If there is a council which is stupid

  313
  enough and which is backward enough to deny the right of education to the children of its area, that council should be removed at the earliest possible moment and replaced by sensible and progressive people. The parents, who are the ratepayers, will see to that. There is not the slightest doubt about that.
  Mr. MacColl: The hon. Member represents an Essex constituency. Has there not recently been a startling manifestation of public opinion against the education authority it Essex?
  Mr. Lagden: I certainly represent an Essex constituency, and I am very proud of that. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that Essex is probably the most advanced and best education authority in the country, and that it will open one school every two weeks for the next twelve months. If the hon. Member cares to rise again and to tell me that he represents an area which can beat that, I shall be very pleased to hear it.
  Mr. MacColl: I am a Lancashire man. We changed our education authority at the same time as the Essex people changed theirs. That seems to show that public opinion does work to throw out backward education authorities.
  Mr. Lagden: As I expected, I have not had a reply. The record of the area which the hon. Member represents cannot compare, or he would have said so. I thank him for reminding me of the admirable record of the County of Essex.
  Without any guide to assist him, the Minister has had to fix various periods for examination of finances and so forth. In the present Minister, we have one who will think along the lines I am about to advocate. If after a short period he finds that it is necessary slightly to amend the Bill on this matter of the periods of review, then I ask him to be courageous enough to do so. In the present Minister, as he has shown in other matters, we have a man who is prepared to act according to the good of the people and who will not play party politics, as they have been played by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. David Jones: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) described how a council with
  314
  which he was acquainted always examined any scheme put before it on the basis of whether it ranked for grant. I gathered that if a scheme ranked for grant the council went ahead with it but did nothing about it if it did not rank for grant. When the block grant comes into operation, no scheme will rank for grant, and it is to be presumed that every scheme which comes before the council which the hon. Member described will be turned down.
  That is precisely our complaint about the block grant. We complain about the block grant because 80 per cent. of the total will be for education purposes and, as the grant will be arranged in advance and will be unalterable for two years, it may be necessary for a local education authority to go ahead with some project, desirable in the interests of education in its area, meeting the whole cost from local rate resources. There are poor and rich areas, and the final decision on whether a scheme will proceed, irrespective of its effect upon the education of the children of the area, in the last analysis will depend on whether an authority can afford to increase the rates to the extent required. We say that that is wrong for education.
  The hon. Member referred to a General Election. I cannot speak for my party, but I hope that as soon as possible after the next General Election the block grant provisions will be entirely removed from this legislation. This afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary said that there had been no change in local government structure for the past seventy years. Indeed, the White Papers issued by the Ministry have said that there is nothing substantially wrong with the present structure of local government. If the White Papers are to be believed, all that the local government boundary commissions will be expected to do is to make small alterations here and there.
  As one who has taken some part in local government and who has been connected in a minor way with a local government association, I know the difficulties which are experienced in trying to get a measure of agreement. I am very sorry that there should have been introduced into the Bill this contentious matter of the block grant. I wish that it had been possible for the Government to have seen their way clear to have dealt with the re-organisation of

  315
  the finance of local government separately from altering its structure. In that way, we could have obtained a substantial measure of agreement for a careful, minutely detailed examination of the structure of local government with a view to bringing it up to date.
  I share the doubts of my hon. Friends, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), about whether a review of their areas by the county councils is the best approach. The Local Government Act, 1933, empowered county councils to review areas within the geographical counties and to recommend changes, but few of those changes took place over the years. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to have second thoughts about this and to use some other completely independent authority to make the review of the areas within counties.
  Some Amendments have been made to the Bill in Committee. They have effected some improvements, but there remain several matters which cause concern to the boroughs. The Bill provides a measure of compulsory delegation of local health service functions to the larger non-county boroughs. That is a disappointment to many of those boroughs which, by their size, their resources, their experience and the standard of their administration, are well able to undertake this work, but the necessity for linking those functions with the education service has prevented the Government from entrusting this function to county boroughs with a smaller population than 60,000.
  Many boroughs have expressed considerable disappointment that, because of the new grant structure, it has been necessary to give these functions to larger non-county boroughs by delegation and not by direct conferment. It is important to remember when considering the question of direct conferment and the size of the authority administering the service that, generally speaking, these local health services are very personal services. In consequence, it is in the highest degree desirable that the person receiving the service should have ready access to the elected representatives controlling the service and also to the officers administering it.
  I turn to another matter, which is the primary reason for my taking part in
  316
  this debate. A week ago today the Parliamentary Secretary, I believe inadvertently, in moving an Amendment to Clause 37 misled the House. He was moving an Amendment which now provides the new subsection (6) to Clause 38. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "I can explain the Amendment in a few short sentences. What it amounts to is that where the area of a local authority is extended, that extension in itself should not extend the running area of any public service transport undertaking. The question of the area of the running of the public service transport undertaking should be left, as I understand it always has been in the past by local Acts, to the decision of the Traffic Commissioners. What we are saying is that a requirement to this effect shall of necessity be included in any Order which is made under the Bill where it is appropriate to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1131.]
  I believe the Parliamentary Secretary quite inadvertently misled the House.
  The Amendment gave the opponents of the expansion of any transport undertaking within an area which has increased in size as a consequence of a decision by the Minister two bites at the cherry. There is already provision in Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that every municipal transport undertaking has to have a road service licence. That licence indicates the extent to which the service can be operated within the area of a local authority. Despite the fact that the power to run the service might have been granted by a local Act or by an order, which is equivalent to an Act, the authority must have a road service licence. Section 72 makes that crystal clear. That road service licence provides for the extent to which the service can operate. In the event of a local authority which is a transport authority having the good fortune to have an order laid before this House extending its boundary, it cannot extend its service into the new area without the authority of the local licensing commissioners giving it power to extend the service into new areas.
  When he moved the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman gave the objectors to such a service two bites at the cherry. He proposes to apply the powers of Sections 101 and 102 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to those extended areas. Those Sections were designed for the purpose of enabling a local authority which has a transport undertaking to run its service into the area of an adjoining authority. Before it could do that it had to apply,

  317
  under Sect ion 101, for consent to run over the roads. Having secured that consent, it was then obliged to go back to the Traffic Commissioners and to get its licence altered to cover the existing area.
  In the case of roads within its own area, it has not to secure consent under Section 101 but has to get an alteration of licence under Section 72, which provides that the licensing authority—described as "traffic commissioners" in the 1930 Act but under the amended title "licensing authority" in the Transport Act, 1947—must hold public sittings and must take evidence from any individual who objects to the extension of this service by a local authority. There is ample power under Sections 64 and 72 for a local authority or anybody who objects to the service, including the public transport undertakings, to make their objections.
  Section 64 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, said:
  "The commissioners shall for the purpose of hearing and determining applications for the grant and backing of road service licences, and may for any other purpose, if they so think fit, hold public sittings at such places in any part of their area as appears to them convenient."
  That provides that any objector can make representations but also, in Section 72, that on any application by a local authority for an extension of its licence, other than within its own area, the traffic commissioners shall take into account the existing services operating in that area.
  It seems ironical for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to talk about giving greater freedom to local authorities, and then to hamstring in this way the authorities who happen to have road passenger undertakings. They are, in fact, giving two bites at the cherry to all the privately-owned undertakings in the district to stop the municipality from extending its service in that area which the Minister, by the Order, has conceded to it. That is not giving freedom to local authorities in transport undertakings.
  If it is considered by the local government boundary commission and endorsed by the Minister that a new area should be added to the existing area, with all the consequences involved in providing services, it does not lie in the mouths of the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary to say that if the
  318
  municipality happens to have a road passenger transport undertaking it is to be hamstrung by having to go twice to the licensing authority for power to run. That is an impediment to municipal authorities who have transport undertakings, and I hope that in another place the Government will seek to remove from the Bill the provision that was inserted on Tuesday of last week
  I am sorry that the Government have seen fit to introduce this contentious matter into the Bill. To get agreement upon local government has been difficult enough in the past. Because I believe that the Bill, in spite of its good features, has bad features which will impair local government, I shall go into the Lobby tonight against it.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Steward: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), although I do not propose to follow him in his last argument except to say that I understood clearly from the Minister that he was not using this Bill to enter into the controversy which has been going on for years regarding this matter, but was maintaining the status quo and allowing the argument to be settled outside the sphere of this Measure.
  Obviously, a Bill of this size must have critics from all sides. I, probably in common with many of my hon. Friends, do not agree with every dot and comma in the Bill. I join with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools in having misgivings about the powers given to the county authorities in their subsequent representations. I hope with the hon. Member that it may yet be possible to substitute some other procedure for carrying out this work.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools that this Bill should have stopped short before the financial provisions. A Bill of this character has been looked forward to for years by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and had it not contained these financial provisions it would have been a mere skeleton. It would have meant changing the boundaries without infusing into the local authorities that sense of purpose and feeling of their own security which it is the whole purpose of this Bill to give. I believe that, when once it had

  319
  been found by inquiry that there was no other way of raising finance on a local basis, the block grant system set out in this Measure was almost inevitable.
  I can understand to a degree the sense of misgiving or, rather, of anxiety among education authorities about the block grant system. I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept that, irrespective of party, people are sincere in their views about education. As a member of a local authority as well as a Member of this House, I yield to none in my sense of the importance of education. I would never be a party to anything which I believed would harm or curtail the expansion of the education service which we must have in the future. I do not believe that it is an essential part of the block grant system that an economy in the education service must follow as a natural corollary, and so I support the Bill.
  I have listened to all the arguments which have been advanced, but I have not yet been able to read into them any real establishment of the fact, or principle, or anything else, that it must follow naturally that the introduction of a block grant system as such, means an axe laid against the education service. Again speaking as a member of a local authority, I believe that there is a great interest at local level just as there is in this House. I do not believe that, provided that the funds placed at their disposal are adequate, local authorities will cut the education service or deny the necessary expansion. In the last resort, the whole of this argument comes down to a question of the intention in the minds of people who make the funds available in the first place.
  I think we are justified in saying that the record of this Government since it came to office in 1951 gives one real support for believing that they will place adequate funds at the disposal of local authorities for the purposes which they have to fulfil, in particular that of education. I have had, and there is no doubt that other hon. Members have also had, visits from deputations of educationists. I received such a deputation a fortnight ago. They came to me with a list of ten questions. I do not know whether they expected me to sit down and answer them on the spot, although I found it would
  320
  have been possible to do that. Running through the whole theme of these questions was the suspicion that, in some way or other, in bringing in the block grant system the Tory Government had in mind a cut in the education service. Again I say that there is no evidence for that belief whatsoever.
  The first two questions were:
  "What is the Government's real intention in introducing the block grant against such strong and united opposition?"
  and,
  "How can the economies arising from the block grant be reconciled to Lord Hailsham's statement about education costing more?"
  Surely if there is anything in this argument, those two points contradict each other.
  It is true that successive Ministers of Education have spoken from the Box very fully in support of the extension of the education service and the need to meet its cost. If they were speaking truthfully and with sincerity, how can they, as members of the Cabinet, support a block grant system? They do so because they believe, just as I believe, that it is equally possible, working within a block grant system, to meet the country's educational needs. That is why I support the Bill, and I believe that everything which has happened in the last eight years is support for my belief.
  The next question is,
  "Do you think the present percentage system extravagant?"
  In common with other hon. Members, I have been, and still am, a member of a local education committee, and I do not suggest that there is waste and extravagance by local authorities through these committees, but I say, frankly, that there are occasions, as indeed, human nature being what is is, there must be occasions, when they do not perhaps give the essential priority to one thing against another because of the difference in the percentage grant derived from central sources. When we make them responsible for their own housekeeping they will put these priorities in the right order.
  Moreover, when they have the money in their hands and are responsible for their own housekeeping, surely they will be more interested in the results they achieve. When we are merely asking somebody to rubber-stamp any ideas we put forward, then these odd ideas about

  321
  expenditure and perhaps a sense of false values in expenditure can creep in, but if we are responsible for our own expenditure we shall make the money do the best possible job. Providing the money is adequate, that job will conform with the needs of the country.
  In my humble submission, whichever way we look at the situation we come back to the questions, are the Government's intentions honourable, and, if they remain in power, is it their intention to make available under the block grant system finance which is adequate for the purpose? I believe that the answer to both those questions is a most emphatic, "Yes", and it is because of that that I am a wholehearted supporter of the Bill.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) asked why people believed that the present Administration would not carry out the promises which they have made as the Bill has been making its progress through the House. If people do not believe, it is precisely because of the broken pledges which have already been revealed with the passage of time. The Minister who is in charge of the Bill has been in charge of another Bill—a Bill which, at the last Election, the Conservatives denied would ever be introduced. If there are people who cannot believe and who, because of this betrayal, do not trust either the Minister or the Government, it is the fault of the Minister and the Government.
  If people have not the impression that the Government are anxious to curtail public expenditure, then I fail to understand the propaganda campaign in which Conservatives have been taking part since 1945. There is not a single hon. Member opposite who has not said that public expenditure ought to be reduced. If public expenditure is to be brought down the money must be taken from somewhere. Some service must be denied.
  Mr. H. Steward: The hon. Member will surely agree that when I was making that specific point I was talking continually about the education service which, throughout the years, has continued to expand and is expanding today—and, as I see it, will continue to expand in the future.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, because of inflation. Everything it needs has risen in price, whether it be books, buildings, or the teachers' services. Every item costs more each year. If the service had not been using more money it would of necessity have been cut. The fact that more money is being spent in a period of inflation and rising prices does not mean the provision of a substantially better service.
  Mr. Bevins: I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I know that he would not want to mislead the House, but taking into account the increase in the child population and the rise in prices since 1951 it is still the case that there has been a substantial expenditure upon education.
  Mr. Mitchison: May I also interrupt my hon. Friend, to draw his attention to Circulars Nos. 331 and 334, one of which intimated a substantial cut in capital expenditure and the other a substantial cut in running expenditure in the education service?
  Mr. Fernyhough: It is quite obvious that there has been a desire to cut. If tens of thousands of people who have given their lives to the education service are perturbed and anxious about its future it is precisely because of circulars such as those mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend, and the betrayals in other spheres.
  I can understand the fears which have beset those in the educational world. Far from our having been spending too much, we have not been spending enough on education. Today, we are engaged not only in a great struggle to earn our living, but in a great ideological battle. About three weeks ago I was in Eastern Germany. I saw there some things which appealed to me, although there were many others which dismayed me. I was honest in giving praise and apportioning blame.
  One of the matters which interested me very much was the importance which the Government of Eastern Germany attach to education. I am not saying that it is the right education, or that it is directed towards the ends in which we believe, but there can be no question that as far as

  323
  that country's economy permits education is practically its No. 1 priority. In whichever direction one looks, whether it be at their schools, their universities, their places for physical culture, or their creches, one can see how much importance they attach to the problem of education.
  I wish to goodness that we would attach the same importance to it. Ever since 1948 I have believed that the ideological struggle will be won not with missiles, but with minds. Ultimately, it will be a battle not of bombs, but of brains. I should like to feel that this service, which will mean so much to the future of our country, will not be cut down by the Bill, but I have very grave doubts about that.
  The other issue in respect of which the Bill displeases me is that although it makes some concession to the general body of ratepayers by its derating proposals, in as much as it substitutes a rate of 50 per cent. for 75 per cent. on industrial premises, it does not go far enough. I cannot understand right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that there is something immoral and wicked in a man's living in a subsidised council house when he is getting £15 or £20 a week. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that he should pay the full economic rent. I cannot understand why they can say that when they do not utter a word of protest when large industrial concerns, which are paying bonus shares and paying higher dividends every year, are being subsidised by the general body of ratepayers in their areas—to the extent of 75 per cent. now, to be reduced only to 50 per cent.
  I have never understood how they can use that argument about council houses and keep silent about the derating of industry, because as everybody knows the cost to the rates of subsidised council houses is only half the cost of subsidising industry by derating.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: Even if there is any analogy between the two, the difference is that half the advantage to industry goes back to the Exchequer by way of taxation, whereas there is no return on the allowance made for rent.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Of course, it is true that the bigger the profit a firm makes the more it pays in tax. In the same way,
  324
  the working man who earns £30 a week, of whom we have heard so much but whom one seldom meets, contributes more to the Exchequer by way of Income Tax than a man who earns less.
  If it is argued that a man with that income ought not to live in a subsidised council house, and if that argument is used as an excuse for abolishing subsidies altogether, it is a fair argument to say that the prosperous firm paying bonus shares and ever-increasing dividends has no need of derating and that derating of industry should be abolished.
  The Bill may have been necessary for the reorganisation of local government, it may have been necessary for tidying up local government, but I cannot believe that in the year 1958 it is necessary to introduce changes which are bound fundamentally to affect our education service. I believe that the fears of the teachers, the university lecturers, and everybody associated with education will be justified if the Government remain in power and are able to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act. But I am very thankful that the present Government cannot last much longer; I am very thankful that their end is in sight.
  I am very glad that the General Election is not too far distant. Then it will be left to us sitting on this side of the House to move over to the places of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House and to remedy the wrongs which they have done to the local government services.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary disturbed me when he began his speech today by referring to the kindly relations which had existed in Committee. I hastily looked up one of my first references to the right hon. Gentleman. I find I described him as excessively obstinate and at that point putting forward a shifty argument. I shall have to say much the same thing to him tonight. I think I misunderstood the Parliamentary Secretary. Really he was, I think, charging me, and perhaps rightly, with assisting the right hon. Gentleman in his thirst for martyrdom which we have always noticed. No doubt in that respect I was doing my best.
  I said "extremely obstinate", and there is one clear indication of it in the

  325
  form in which the Bill appears. No significant alteration whatever has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition. However bitter his political feelings may be, even he must recognise that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Committee are people with considerable experience, and all of them are people with considerable knowledge of the subject-matter of the Bill. It argues, therefore, a certain obstinacy in the right hon. Gentleman and a certain surety in his own wisdom that he should have been led to accept nothing except some quite insignificant Amendments which made changes in the Bill or put matters into it which he was going to provide for anyhow.
  The Bill is really two Bills, not one. There is no particular reason that the financial provisions should go in with the rest of it, except perhaps a tactical reason. I shall deal first with the rest of the Bill in Part II, Part III and bits of the hotchpotch which constitutes Part IV. Parts II and III provide for machinery for a general review of local government structure, and they provide for a delegation, in certain circumstances, of health functions. The original intention of the Government was, of course, more sweeping, but it is not what we have in the Bill. I agree that there is a case for some general review of local government structure, but a limited case.
  It is interesting to look at the points where, in my view and, I think, in the view of many of my hon. Friends, a review is called for. The first is the position of small local authorities which, through no fault of those who serve on them but for lack of resources, of rateable value and of population, are necessarily ineffective in their functions. The significant thing about that, which is something we all recognise, is that the future of those local authorities is to be dealt with, by and large, by county reviews. County reviews have existed for some time. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in Cmd. 9831, page 11, recognises that in many cases those county reviews have failed to work. The reason is that, in carrying them out, there have been local interests common to the county councillors and to the county districts they were reviewing. In a great many cases, there were bargains between one county councillor and another to leave
  326
  this, that or the other district alive. All of us who know what happened at those reviews know quite well that, not in all cases but in a very great number, the job was not properly done for that reason. This is recognised in the White Paper itself.
  As has been said already, it is wrong to go back to that method when something very much like the Boundary Commission is being set up by the Bill and the local government commissions, as they are now called, could perform what was one of the functions of the old Boundary Commission and look into the question of these county districts, and do it impartially. I am not particularly concerned to know, as I do, that many county councils and county districts might object to that. What I object to, an broader grounds, is that that which caused the partial failure in the past has been taken as the thing to begin with in doing something which we all recognise to be needed at this time.
  The second point I can take even more shortly. I agree that something ought to be done about claims to county borough status, such as the claim of Ilford and so on. There is a parallel case halfway between that and what I have been talking about with regard to the small boroughs with a magnificent past, little present and no future which are to be put into the rural districts. The mayor will be allowed to keep the panoply but little of the substance. It will not make everybody popular, but there is something to be said for it.
  I now turn to the conurbations, as they are commonly called, which are the subject in this Bill of special review areas and very comprehensive procedure indeed. The powers of the local government commission in relation to special review areas are exceedingly sweeping. The commission can abolish counties, county boroughs and county districts, and it can create others. It can amalgamate and deal with functions in what is known as a continuous county and can recast the whole structure. But, as the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, all that is in relation to local government areas and functions.
  It seems to me that in their approach to the problem of the conurbations the Government have made one fundamental mistake, and I think that many of my

  327
  hon. Friends have realised it. It may be a beginning to deal with them from the local government point of view, but it is certainly not enough to deal with the whole conurbation problem. Such matters as new towns, housing, planning, overspill, green belts and so on are matters which I cannot and would not wish to discuss today, but they, too, must take their place in the right approach to the conurbation problem. I merely say that generally in those matters the record of the Government is not too good.
  I turn from that part of the Bill to the financial part. May I call the attention of the House to this point? It is on the financial part of the Bill that the whole case for it depends. After all, the attractions that I have been putting forward in the rest of the Bill are not very sweeping, and I have never heard it suggested that the reason for putting in the financial part of the Bill was because it was necessary to have a local government review. On the contrary, the financial part of the Bill has been defended and attacked quite independently and it has very little to do with the rest of the Bill. I remain of the opinion that the financial part is the Government's real reason for the Bill and that the rest of it, although no doubt useful in its way and something for which a good deal can be said, has been introduced in the same Bill to cover up the real reasons for the financial part.
  May I deal with the main point in the Bill, which is the replacement of percentage grants in a number of highly important services, including not only education but some which are less expensive, although very important, by what is conveniently called the block grant, which is, in fact, a system of general grants. I shall go on calling it a block grant.
  The first point is that the percentage grants have worked, and have worked not merely under this Government and under Labour Governments since the war but for a long time before that, and particularly in the educational field. And remember, when the last block grant was introduced, the education service was kept out of it on the grounds then held in the Ministry of Education that it was particularly unsuitable for a block grant. Therefore, it is a tried thing, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite say, as they have been saying today, that the Government have done
  328
  very well in education, I will not argue that with them now. All I say is that if this is their opinion, why alter the percentage grant system?
  Now let us see what are the suggestions. They are to be superseded because they act as an indiscriminate incentive to further expansion. I think that on the right hon. Gentleman's grave those words may well be engraved, with a few suitable additions. An indiscriminating incentive to financial expenditure. That is a disgraceful accusation for any Government to make. It is an accusation of extravagance against the local authorities, and one Royal Commission and Departmental committee after another, ending with the Edwards Commission recently—and Mr. Edwards is the Chief Financial Officer in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry—has found that there is no foundation for that suggestion, and no foundation for the suggestion of extravagance among local authorities.
  When we get an hon. Gentleman getting up today and solemnly saying that there must be extravagance among local authorities because the London County Council bought a few dictaphones, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that this kind of argument is really almost conclusive. Because hon. Gentlemen opposite are pretty well briefed by the Conservative Central Office, as we all know, and if that is the best they can find, if the one symptom of extravagance is the purchase of equipment which everybody agrees industry ought to have, then there is strong confirmation of the opinion of all these committees that this kind of story is just moonshine; and yet it is put forward in a Government White Paper.
  What is the next argument? It is that they involve an excessive degree of detailed central supervision over the spending of the money. That, too, has been answered completely by the people who are in much the best position to know—the experts on local government and local government finance, who constituted the research committee set up by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants and circulated the local authorities concerned to find out if there was any truth in that kind of statement. The answer was that there was not. Of course, there is control, and detailed control, but the financial side of it does not

  329
  bear the prominence and has not got the effect that is suggested.
  Those are two, on the face of it, very feeble reasons for destroying a form of grant which has worked well in the past. Now we come to the real reason. The real reason is that under the percentage grants—
  "… there is no certainty from year to year what the Exchequer may be called upon to contribute"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1078.]
  That significant statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman in making his preliminary statement to the lengthy debates we have had on this matter, and it has never been repeated in any White Paper or anywhere else. I wonder who told the right hon. Gentleman that this was rather a dangerous tack to sail on? What does it amount to? It amounts to this, that the Treasury wants to know beforehand exactly what it has got to pay, and that if any more comes along then the Treasury is not going to pay it.
  I agree that there are provisions for minor adjustments in the Bill, and I will not go into them now, but the broad proposition is true. The real reason for destroying the percentage grant system, which has worked, and putting in its place a block grant system which will not work, as I shall show in a minute., is not the interests of these services but simply the dead hand of the Treasury. When I talk of the dead hand of the Treasury, what I mean is that I regard this Bill as an attempt to relieve the taxpayer at the expense of the ratepayer, and at the expense of the people who are benefited by the local government services which constitute the relevant expenditure under this Bill.
  I want to say one thing about the taxpayer and ratepayer, and it is very simple. Rates are far more regressive than taxes. They come down on the man who is badly off far more than taxes do in proportion, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He knows how difficult it is to estimate it exactly, and he knows the truth of the general proposition. It is part of Tory freedom that those who have some money should be made to pay less, and that those who have even less money should be made to pay more. That is part of Tory freedom in its fiscal aspects, and I deplore that kind of challenge. I agree that it is
  330
  not easy to find an alternative to rates, but no sensible person will deny that they are a very faulty form of tax, and very largely for that reason they come down much too hardly on people who are badly off.
  I shall come back in a moment to the question of taxes, rates and the block grant, but before I come to that I want to mention quite shortly two other points in the Bill. I still object very strongly to the fact that when the Government have recognised that it is right to rerate industry to some extent they should do it only to the extent of one additional quarter instead of three additional quarters; that is to say, that we should be left with half the hog instead of the whole hog. It is really nonsense to talk of a twopenny increase in cotton yarn and the rest of it without at the same time mentioning the position of other ratepayers, and those other ratepayers are, on the one hand, the shops and offices and, on the other hand and above all, the domestic ratepayer.
  The domestic ratepayer is made to pay more than his fair share of rates because the Government have not got the courage to rerate industry fully, although they acknowledge that a derating of industry by a quarter was only brought in at a time when industry was suffering from exceptional difficulties. Their broad answer is the same. They said then that it was necessary to derate industry to the extent of three-quarters because of the economic position of the country, and they say now that the economic position of the country, again under a Tory Government, is such that they cannot afford to rerate to the extent of more than half. The person who pays for that little bit of Tory stagnation is the domestic ratepayer.
  There is another point. It might be possible to defend the Treasury taking two-thirds of the proceeds if the Treasury had not, over shops and offices, refused to make any contribution in the converse case. We can defend either one of these propositions, but we cannot defend both, except on the footing that it is part of Tory policy always to transfer burdens from the taxpayer to the ratepayer if they can manage to do it. That is the only logical defence for it.
  There is one more point. "Normal expenditure" sounds all right. We are

  331
  told that local authorities will not get a rate deficiency grant in excess of their normal expenditure. Everybody thinks that it sounds sensible and leaves it at that, but on examination it is found that behind those innocent words is the most effective check on any progressive authority.
  Broadly speaking, what happens is that the average of the three preceding years is taken as the basis for the limit of local authority expenditure. The result is that an authority which, because it is progressive or because it has increasing demands on it, finds its expenditure going up from year to year—year one so and so; year two more; and year three more yet—finds, when it comes to year four, that what will check it will not be year three but year two. That is the ingenious device in the calculation of the rate deficiency grant.
  One has to remember about all these matters that it is not the direct change that matters, but the effect on the local authority itself and its own finance. None of these grants will meet the services which constitute the relevant expenditure. They will meet only part of them, and the part which they will meet in the majority of cases will be smaller than even the minimum standard which might be set by any central government.
  The vice in the block grant system is that, whenever one comes to any single one of these expenses, the top of it, the part not met by the grant, comes entirely out of the rates. It therefore depends on the rate attitude of the local authority—its rate attitude not only towards the services as a whole, but as between one service and another—whether those essential services are adequately maintained or improved.
  This is Tory freedom: We have got it at last. It always takes the same form, whether it applies to a local authority or a person—"You can do anything you like if only you have enough money to pay for it yourself." That is what it comes to, and when local authorities are offered freedom that is exactly what they are offered, no more and no less.
  I want to give one or two examples of what the block grant will cover. One mentioned by an hon. Member opposite is university grants for scholarships. Another is the workers education service.
  332
  Another couple from the Health Service are mental health and the care of handicapped persons. All those have been discussed in Committee and elsewhere.
  Those are all relatively small services compared with the main service in each case. There is bound to be competition between one committee and one chairman of a local authority and another. The Government say that that is freedom and democracy. Is there not a national policy for education? Is there not an obligation on the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education—and I am glad to see him in his place at long last—to put forward an education programme and to ensure educational progress in conjunction with local authorities, who for those purposes are agents of the central Government?
  The Bill is a step backward in that respect. Educationists will have to fight for their money with all those other equally essential but completely different services—and so will every other service. What will happen to the poor little waifs in the system like W.E.A. and university grants? What is going to happen to mental health? What is to happen to handicapped persons? In each case the Government Commission recommended specific grants and that it should not be dealt with in the way it is being dealt with now. What does it matter to this Government, or to the Treasury? All they are concerned with is seeing that the Treasury knows beforehand what it is going to have to pay from year to year.
  The worst enemy of progress in these cases is the absolutely typical Tory councillor who is responsible for the kind of notice we have all known in every local government election for donkeys' years past, the man who wants to cut the rates at all costs. That is the one appeal which goes down with every member of the party opposite, cut the rates at all costs. If the rates are to be cut it will be at the expense of these services, and the fact that there is no percentage grant on them but only a block grant is the best possible inducement to that kind of reactionary type to cut them and to save some money as the phrase goes.
  It is not saving money at all in the long run. So far as councils do not do anything, undoubtedly for the time being they will save money, but does anyone really suppose in this year of grace in this country of ours that we

  333
  can make the country any wealthier by cutting down education, health and the rest, or that we can make the country any better by neglecting duties in the way of providing Part III accommodation for the aged or services in relation to mental health and handicapped persons? What a civilisation! If that is all that can be said for us, I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. It will be interesting indeed.
  The difficulty in all these cases is not only that these are essential services, but that they are expanding ones. Education has got to expand. It has expanded and has to go on expanding. As for mental health, look at the Guillebaud Report, and as for handicapped persons, look at the Piercy Report. Things have to be done in recognition of our duty as a community to the kids, the old people and those who are ill. We have to meet rising expenditure. This block grant is intended to limit expenditure and to see that the Treasury knows where it is in advance. That is the real object.
  I believe, as I believed at the beginning—perhaps I am an extremely obstinate person—that that is the real object of this Bill. It is typical Tory mentality. As for Tory freedom, what is the freedom of saying to people, "You can spend money as you like; here is the grant, buy what you like with it", when the grant does not in fact maintain the services which are required, when it is their own money which has to supplement it, above all, when everyone recognises that this Bill contains no proper provision for ensuring grant above what I might call a penal standard in these services? If anything else has to be done it has to be done by Parliament.
  The local authorities have been sadly misled. To quote the words with which I began, it was a shifty argument to tell them that if they would only come in on this Bill and give the right hon. Gentleman some measure of support they would get two inestimable advantages. One was the block grant, the amount of which they did not know, do not know, and will not know until the very last moment. The other was a relief from control which was offered to them in the vaguest possible terms, which, when it comes, will either be a denial of national responsibilities or nothing, for nobody can say at present that the control of local authorities is,
  334
  broadly speaking, excessive. They do not say so themselves.
  So, in the name of Tory freedom, we are being asked to sacrifice progress, to cut the cost of services for the young, the old and the sick, to substitute regressive taxes for progressive ones and to take the step backward which the block grant has always meant in the history of this country.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): Of all that can be said about the Bill, no one has suggested or could allege that it has been inadequately discussed. Its principles have been stated and debated, and restated finally and most effectively this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, to whose assistance in the long passage of this Bill I would like to pay tribute. Indeed, I would like to express in all sincerity to hon. Members on both sides of the House my appreciation for their speeches, helpful or destructive, because I believe that a major Bill of this character ought to be subjected to free Parliamentary debate.
  Particularly I would thank all those who endured the long marathon of the Standing Committee. I am on record, in one of those rare mistakes of HANSARD, as saying that the Committee had lasted from seven to nine hours. No doubt owing to my unclear diction, it was so recorded. What I actually said, with accuracy, was that the Committee had lasted 79 hours. It was a constructive job of work that we did. I grant at once to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that the proceedings in the Committee were vigorous and plain spoken. If "obstinate" was the worst adjective attributed to me I am surprised to hear it. At any rate, he will, for his part, grant that the proceedings were always good tempered. We never threw books at one another. I believe that without exception we were seeking to improve the Bill.
  It is not true that, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said earlier in today's debate, the Bill is causing deep concern among all those connected with local government. The truth is that very large numbers of people with experience of local government have

  335
  helped in the shaping of this Bill. No one knows better than I do that some parts of it are highly controversial. I certainly would not seek to bring local government officers into matters of party controversy, but at the same time it is a fact that a great part of the Bill is broadly agreed. In that sense I want to express my appreciation, and I hope we should all join in it, to those elected members of local authorities and to those officers of local authorities who have worked hard on the detail which necessarily has to receive careful attention if there is to be any question of Parliament passing far-reaching legislation of this kind.
  The purpose of the Bill is to bring into existence stronger and more independent local government. It is, I sincerely hope, common ground between us that local government is a vital part of British democracy. It may perhaps be dull. Many of us who have spent hours in the committee rooms in the town hall or the council office may wonder, looking back, why we wasted so much of our time. Nevertheless, we have learned from that experience. Whatever our individual contribution may have been, collectively the great British public is better off in that we do not centralise all power in Westminster or Whitehall but so organise our affairs that many decisions closely affecting the people of this country are taken locally by those who know local affairs at close hand and will be personally criticised if things go wrong as a result of their decisions.
  What the Government want to help to bring about is a more integrated local democracy. We do not want to see an education service standing all by itself. We do not want to see a local health service standing all by itself. From what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) I fancied that he hankered after something of that kind. But I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) had a much sounder idea. He grasped the conception that what we need in this country are elected councils, elected local authorities, whose purpose is to serve the general public good.
  Naturally, individual members of local authorities will concentrate on this or on that, according to their bent, interest or experience—exactly as we all do in this
  336
  House. But just as in Parliament we have our debates on various subjects but nevertheless all feel a common responsibility in common affairs, so it is right that each local council should feel a collective responsibility for the good of the whole locality; and it would be wrong if individual members were to gain the mistaken idea that they are concerned with and responsible for only one individual service or another.
  I trust that I speak for the whole House when I say that we also recognise that local government should be in partnership both with the central Government, which we represent, and with the voluntary organisations; because it is that trio of authorities, or centres of power, which makes up the whole gamut of public service. I am aware that some voluntary organisations have expressed apprehension lest through the operation of this Bill they may receive less generous support than in the past.
  I say to them that this Government, at any rate, have never neglected to represent to local authorities the desirability of making full use of the great fund of enthusiastic voluntary service which is such a notable feature of the public life of this country. Certainly it is our desire that that should continue, and it will be appreciated that the total amount of the Exchequer grant made available under this Bill will be determined with regard to the amount of expenditure incurred by local authorities in providing the services concerned—not only in providing services directly, but also including any contributions which they make to voluntary bodies in relation to those services. Our aim is to strengthen local government and to attract into local government service men and women of the highest ability. I would say that that is the best assurance of all that local authorities will continue to set a proper value on the part which voluntary service has to play in local affairs.
  As to the financial section of this Bill, though the feature of the general grant has attracted most of the controversial attention, of course it does not stand alone. We are strengthening the rate resources of local authorities, the resources directly under their control, by rerating industry to 50 per cent. The Opposition would wish that to be 100 per cent. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary

  337
  Secretary indicated in his speech that, on the Government's proposals, industry, in fact, will be paying three times as large a share of the total rate burden as it was before revaluation in 1956.
  Moreover, however prosperous British industry may be collectively, not all individual industries are equally prosperous, nor are all individual firms within an industry. If we are to approach these matters in a sense of responsibility, we must have regard to all that; and it is the Government's considered judgment that in the present circumstances in which we are submitting the Bill to Parliament the proper course is to fix the rating of industry not, as over the last thirty years, at 25 per cent., but at 50 per cent.
  In addition, we are introducing a new system for the rating of the electricity and gas industries. This is highly complicated in appearance, but I think that these plans have been accepted almost without demur in Committee and by the House.
  During the Third Reading debate I do not remember any mention of the important changes which the Bill brings about in the rate deficiency grant.
  Mr. Mitchison: My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) referred to it.
  Mr. Brooke: If I am wrong I apologise, but it has attracted relatively little discussion, and yet I believe that it is almost universally welcomed that in future we are to have this rate deficiency grant payable to county districts and not only to county councils and county borough councils. We are making a welcome reform of the law.
  Mr. Moss: The hon. Member will recall that I welcomed all those provisions in my speech.
  Mr. Brooke: To my regret I did not hear the whole of the hon. Member's speech. It is genuinely to my regret, because I know of the very sincere contributions which he made to our Committee discussions, and I particularly welcomed the opposition which he put up to his hon. Friend the Member for All Saints, who wished to bring practically the whole of England into the Birmingham conurbation.
  The controversial issue is the general grant, and I insist on calling it the general
  338
  grant even though the hon. and learned Member, after thirty-one sittings, has not learned better; he insists on calling it the block grant.
  Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is himself incorrect. The correct name for what he is now indicating is the prescribed aggregate of general grants. The general grant is what a single local authority gets.
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Member may call it that if he likes, but I shall refer to it as the general grant. This general grant, as it will be received by each local authority, will then have to be allocated on the advice of the finance committee. That is a feature to which the Opposition have taken strong objection, although I cannot understand why. I cannot conceive why the finance committee of a local authority should not be regarded as a responsible body. In any case, there is no obligation on the council to accept its advice if it thinks that the finance committee's recommendations are ill-judged.
  It has been impossible for us to reach any agreement, I am afraid, on a point which seems obvious to hon. Members on this side of the House who have carefully studied the matter—that is to say, that a system of percentage grants operates against uniformity in the performance of the services. Clearly, the system which the Bill will introduce is more likely to result in reasonable uniformity among different local authorities than the percentage grants, yet much of the criticism has been based on the allegation that, under a general grant, uniformity will not be achieved.
  The effect of a percentage grant is only too well known. It is that to those that have shall more be given. Apparently this has now become a Socialist principle. The basis of the general grant is set out in Clause 2, which is perhaps the most important Clause of all. That Clause enacts that before a figure for the general grant is recommended to the House the Minister must take into consideration the existing expenditure,
  "… the current level of prices, costs and remuneration, together with any future variation in that level which can be foreseen;
  any probable fluctuation in the demand for the services …"

  339
  and, finally,
  "the need for developing those services and the extent to which, having regard to general economic conditions, it is reasonable to develop those services."
  When we say "develop" we mean "develop".
  I want to take up a point which was raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields. He said that he had got hold of some gossip. I want to help him to understand what we are really doing.
  The Government are fully determined to make proper financial provision in the general grant for the development of education and other services covered by it. With that aim in view we have also begun consultations with local authority associations about the machinery for working this out. Our purpose is to start by obtaining from each local authority its estimate of the development which, looking to local needs, it would expect to secure in the two-year period from April, 1959, to March, 1961—that is, the period for which the first general grant Order will run. The full co-operation of local authorities will be sought in the assessment of the need for developing the services, and I am quite sure that this co-operation will be readily given. The hon. Member for All Saints describes this as stagnation. My view is that in this new system of general grants we have an excellent opportunity for planned development in the services concerned, and it is in that spirit that the Government approach the matter.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested that the whole case for the Bill depended upon its financial provisions. That is certainly not the Government's approach. The financial part is an integral part, but the arrangements for creating machinery for the reorganisation of local government are at least equally important.
  Mr. Mitchison: What is the connection between the two?
  Mr. Brooke: The connection is that both are designed to create a system and a structure of local government which will be fully responsible and independent, and will give those who take part in it a worthwhile task to carry out.
  340
  The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was good enough to pay tribute to the courage of the Government in bringing forward proposals for reorganisation. Incidentally, he referred to model schemes for delegation. That question arises under Part III of the Bill. I would assure him that my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Education are consulting local authority associations as to the sort of delegation schemes to be aimed at and the form that the guidance about them should take. It is too early as yet to say whether or not, in either case, the guidance will take the form of model schemes—they have their snags as well as their merits—but we are anxious to arrive, in consultation with local authority associations, at the best method of going forward.
  As regards reorganization, the Bill is a machinery Bill. It makes distinct provision for England and Wales, and although a Royal Commission is now considering the local government system in Greater London, the Bill also allows for the possibility of a suitable application of some of its provisions to the Greater London situation, after the Royal Commission has done its work. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) referred to this. In reply to him I want to make as clear I can how things will develop in alternative ways. One possibility is that the Royal Commission's work will be followed by a Government Bill to settle any new pattern or patterns of local government which may be needed in Greater London.
  Mr. Mitchison: I find nothing about the Royal Commission in this Bill.
  Mr. Brooke: There is a good deal in the Bill to provide for what would happen as regards applying the provisions of the Bill to the Greater London area, and I was seeking to explain, as I thought this relevant to our debate, that either the Royal Commission will be followed by a Government Bill or alternatively, if that does not happen, then the Borough of Ilford and the other large authorities in Greater London will be given back by Order in Council under the provisions of the Bill their opportunity to promote Private Bills notwithstanding that the fifteen years' standstill period has not expired. That is unquestionably what will happen in practice. I want to make clear to him

  341
  and the House that this is an undertaking by the Government, and one which, I am sure, no subsequent Government would be disposed to ignore.
  I said that we were making distinctive provision for England and Wales. There will be two separate local government commissions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested that all the Amendments made to the Bill were for the bad, but as Minister for Welsh Affairs I want to say emphatically that a number of Amendments in favour of Wales were to the good. I think Welsh Members will support me in that.
  We have made various provisions. We contemplate that the Welsh Local Government Commission, of which at least one member will be Welsh speaking, will consist mainly of people who intimately know Wales and her needs. We have amended the Bill to provide that there can be no special review area in Wales—not solely because the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) informed me that there was no Welsh word for conurbation. There is in fact no conurbation in Wales. We have also amended the Bill so as to provide that it will not be possible by an Order under the Bill to alter the boundary between England and Wales.
  I repeat what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, that we intend to appoint the strongest possible commissions. The English Commission will have its responsibilities towards the five conurbations. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) regrets that we have not written the directives to the commissions into the Bill. I think it is wiser to have done it the way we have done it, by providing for directives to be given in the form of regulations which can, of course, be supplanted by new regulations should it be found there is any shortcoming or mistake.
  The local government commission was described at some stages in Committee by the Opposition as remote, and yet, inconsistently, the Opposition demands that the Bill should be amended so as to make this "remote" local government commission responsible for the county reviews. I am quite sure that it is wiser that the county reviews should be carried out by the county councils themselves,
  342
  which know county conditions most intimately. But, of course, the final decision both in regard to recommendations of the local government commissions and in regard to recommendations by the county councils in their county reviews, will be taken by the Minister and will be submitted to Parliament.
  It is strange that so little has been said at any stage of our proceedings about the future of the small boroughs. The Government are keen to see that, contrary to what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said, these boroughs shall have a future. Their local government status and functions may be changed, but we are keenly anxious that they shall retain their corporate position and history.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) mentioned in Committee the Cinque Ports. We have considered the position of the Cinque Ports further, and I trust that the outcome will be acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Lord Warden. On further examination, it has been thought doubtful whether, under the Bill as it stands, all the necessary safeguards could be provided in any Order made by the Minister affecting local government in any Cinque Port area. The confederation of the Cinque Ports should be maintained. They are a great national institution and tradition. This is a matter which will, in the Government's view, require further consideration in another place.
  The Bill is designed to offer better opportunities of service in local government. It will be judged by the quality of service which is given. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for the tribute he gave to the unpaid service rendered by the elected members of local authorities. I am wholly in agreement that we should seek to reorganise the pattern and structure of local government so as to increase the ability of elected representatives to carry their responsibilities. The Bill will produce a sounder structure, sounder financially and likely to be sounder in its shape. If the Bill were to be defeated tonight, by some mischance, almost everybody in local government, knowing the need for reorganisation, would describe its loss as a disaster, The Government have all that widespread support in putting it on the Statute Book.

  343
  The right hon. Member for South Shields criticised me because, he said, I was treating the Bill like the Tables of Stone. When I found the Opposition worshipping a golden calf called "Percentage Grant", with Dr. Alexander sitting astride it, I at any rate, did not lose my temper and break the Tables of Stone.
  We have preserved them. The Tables of Stone became the law, and we intend that this long-planned and far-reaching Bill shall pass into law.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 233.

  Division No. 121.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Ashton, H.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Fell, A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Balniel, Lord

  Forrest, G.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Fort, R.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Barter, John

  Foster, John

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Gammans, Lady

  Joynson-Hioks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Kaberry, D.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Keegan, D.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Glover, D.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Bingham, R. M.

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Kimball, M.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Godber, J. B

  Kirk, P. M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lagden, G. W.

  Black, C. W.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Body, R. F.

  Gower, H. R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Braine, B. R.

  Green, A.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Peterefield)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Grimson, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Bryan, P.

  Gurden, Harold

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

  Carr, Robert

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Luoas, p. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Cole, Norman

  Hay, John

  McAdden, S. J.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Cooper, A. E.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  McKibbin, Alan

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Maddan, Martin

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Hope, Lord John

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hornby, R. P.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Marshall, Douglas

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Mathew, R.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Mawby, R. L.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Dugdale Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Redmayne, M.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Teeling, W.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Ririsdale, J. E.

  Temple, John M.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Nabarro, G. D. N

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Neave, Airey

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Russell, R. S.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, R. Hon. W. D.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Shepherd, William

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Osborne, C.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Page, R. G.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Partridge, E.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Wall, Patrick

  Peel, W. J.

  Speir, R. M.

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Storey, S.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Mr. Oaksbott and

  Colonel J. H. Harrison.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Albu, A. H.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Deer, G.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dolargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Diamond, John

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Baird, J.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Balfour, A.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Dye, S.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

  Edelman, M.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Beswick, Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Janner, B.

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Bonham-Carter, Mark

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.).

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Finch, H. J.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Foot, D. M.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Brookway, A. F.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Kenyon, C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Gibton, C. W.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Burke, W. A.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Grey, C. F.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Carmichael, J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Logan, D. G.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Champion, A. J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hannan, W.

  McCann, J.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Clunie, J.

  Hastings, S.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Coldrick, W.

  Hayman, F. H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh & Finsbury)

  Healey, Denis

  McInnes, J.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Cove, W. G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Cronin, J. D.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Holman, P.

  Mahon, Simon

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Holt, A. F.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  346

  347

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mason, Roy

  Probert, A. R.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Messer, Sir F.

  Pursey, Cmdr, H.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Rankin, John

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Monslow, W.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Timmons, J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Reeves, J.

  Tomney, F.

  Moss, R.

  Reid, William

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Moyle, A.

  Rhodes, H.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Weitzman, D.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  West, D. G.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Ross, William

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Orbach, M.

  Royle, C.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Oswald, T.

  Short, E. W.

  Wigg, George

  Owen, W. J.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Paget, R. T.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Snow, J. W.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Parker, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Parkin, B. T.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Paton, John

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Woof, R. E.

  Peart, T. F.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Pentland, N.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Popplewell, E.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  CHRISTMAS ISLAND BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin rose——
  Hon. Members: Too late.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The position is that the Third Reading of the Bill has been moved and I have called the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin).
  Mr. Parkin: I hope the House can spare a little time in further discussion on this Bill at this stage, because the Minister will realise that his replies last night were a little brief and not entirely satisfactory. There are several of us on this side of the House who were a little worried about the way in which he brushed aside questions asked at an earlier stage of the Bill.
  I myself asked a fair number of questions about the system of law that would be in operation in Christmas Island under the Australians. I asked the Minister whether it would be the system of Chinese law as practised in Singapore, or whether it would be some other system, and he replied that the Australians could very well decide this matter for themselves, since they had a Chinese community in New Guinea. That raises a very interesting fresh point.
  It may be true that there is a Chinese community in New Guinea, but I think it is very difficult to claim that these 2,000 labourers on Christmas Island constitute a community in any recognised significant of the work. They are for the most part temporary residents, having been sent there to earn a living. Furthermore, they have for the most part come from Singapore. If the Chinese in New Guinea have originated in China, it is likely that they will have a different system of law, and not necessarily one which has been modified from the multi-racial community of the Malay Peninsula.
  It seems to me that then; are two important issues here. The first one is
  350
  the sensitivity of the Chinese people in the world at the present time. Surely, it is very much to the interests of this country and the Commonwealth that we should have a relaxed relationship to the Chinese People's Republic. A revolution took place there independently of revolutions in other parts of the world, and those of us who have studied the matter have observed with great satisfaction that there were encouraging features of it which had been absent from some earlier social revolutions during this century. It would be most unfortunate if there were allowed to develop a sort of Chinese irredentist policy, a sort of super-nationalism among Chinese communities living outside the frontiers of the Chinese People's Republic.
  There is no immediate evidence of such expansionist tendencies, but Lord Attlee has said that in his tour he found a certain fear among other countries in South-East Asia that Chinese communities among them might, in the new pride in the achievements of the Chinese People's Republic, adopt an irredentist policy of reunion with their own country, which would be most embarrassing.
  Furthermore, the great quarrel which those of us in this country have with Communist parties is that in their enthusiasm for rapid and ruthless economic planning they have often neglected those human values and the dignity of the human personality to which both sides of the House attach so much importance. It would be unfortunate if, for lack of a little explanation of what is happening, the impression were given that we do not very much care about the values of the way of life of those people who are the subjects of the Bill, especially since those to whom we preach the ideals of greater personal freedom and greater human dignity have very recently in their history passed through periods when human life has not been held very dear.
  The Chinese love their children very much. People who visit them find those children very lovable, but it is one of the facts of recent Chinese history that hundreds, thousands and even millions of Chinese citizens have been killed in disasters and flood which could have been avoided. There is a general feeling of resentment that society did not carry out——
  Mr. Douglas Glover: On a point of order. What has the fate of the Chinese, with which the whole House has the greatest sympathy, to do with Christmas Island?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Bill deals with the transfer of Chinese people.
  Mr. Parkin: I regret that the hon. Member was not with us at our earlier discussion of the Bill when he would have heard the Minister explaining exactly what the purport of the Bill was and how it was concerned precisely with the political fate of a group of Chinese persons, as the Minister described them.
  Those of us who have been asking for further information are anxious that this transfer should be carried out without injuring their way of life while giving them a new citizenship which will not arouse resentment. I was trying to make the point, which I hope the hon. Member will appreciate, that although this may be a very small island in a very large ocean, that ocean happens to be surrounded by countries which are going through social revolutions and which we wish to adopt the cultural heritage of our own country as much as possible.
  When we preach to them on standards of human liberties, surely we should see to it that those standards are meticulously observed by our own country in a matter of this kind. That is why some of us were asking the Minister last night precisely what was involved in this transfer of citizenship.
  Mr. Glover: I do not think that anybody in the House has any lack of sympathy with the inhabitants of Christmas Island. I do not want the hon. Member to misunderstand me, but the fate of the Chinese on the Chinese mainland is a little remote from Christmas Island. I am sure that every hon. Member is 100 per cent. with him in trying to improve the conditions of the people of Christmas Island, but he must keep that narrowly to the point which we are discussing.
  Mr. Parkin: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I shall endeavour to keep within the narrow confines of the Bill. It is not our fault that Christmas Island is geographically rather remote from everywhere. It is rather remote from Australia. That does not
  352
  seem to me a good reason for disposing of the fate of these inhabitants without discussion at dead of night and in great haste.
  I should like to remind the Minister of the questions I asked last night, which he did not answer. I shall not repeat them, even for the benefit of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover), who has been giving me guidance about my speech, but I am wondering whether there is anything about the history of the phosphates company which might be brought to light to assist us in our attitude towards this Bill. What is the haste about this Bill? What has happened to that company, which owned the mineral rights in Christmas Island? There is nothing else to own. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are the birds."] The birds made a great contribution towards it; we know about that.
  There was a private company working the minerals there, and it appears to have decided to do a deal with the Australian Government. Apparently it did not care to remain within the general administrative area of Singapore and could not face the prospect of possibly coming under an independent Singapore. Was it for that reason that this island was made a separate Colony last year? What were the terms so far as the Australian Government were concerned? How much was paid for the company? Where did that money go, and where is the company now? What conditions were laid down as part of the deal for the sale of the workings to the Australian Government?
  Those seem to be relevant points. I hope the Minister will answer them and give some precise answers on the rights of inhabitants as to Australian citizenship and their own laws and customs before the Bill is given a Third Reading.
  10.22 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I should very much like to say a word or two about this island. I know something about it, having visited it. Those Chinese who have been on the island have always been administered under British law. I pay tribute to the Australians, because in the Malayan Civil Service there have been a great many Australians who have full knowledge. I hope that will allow the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) to rest in peace in regard to the conditions he

  353
  mentioned last night about the wives and families of those people.
  Australians have worked for many years in the Malayan Civil Service and have been helpful in administering this island. The phosphate company is, I understand, a joint Great Britain, New Zealand and Australian company, and will remain so in future. I wish to pay tribute to the many Malayan civil servants who have worked in this island, in particular, Mr. Broome, who did a great deal when the Japanese invaded. He rescued many people and went into the jungle with Spenser Chapman and had the support of many of the people of this island. When this island comes under the no jurisdiction of Australia, we need have no fear for the future of these people. I think it will be for their mutual benefit.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: I shall not detain the House for too long, but yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said we were dealing with a constitutional change of some importance. In spite of the fact that we are dealing with a very small island, situated hundreds of miles from any other inhabited place, and with only 2,400 inhabitants, we are doing something which we believe will help us in the British Commonwealth in respect of those nations which are free and independent members of the Commonwealth. It is something which may further the whole idea of the Commonwealth.
  In view of the questions asked yesterday on Second Reading, it is surprising that on the occasion of the Committee stage and Third Reading of this Bill no Law Officer of the Crown has troubled to attend. It is important that there should be one here. The Patronage Secretary should not shake his head. He should get busy, as busy as he is on occasions when we have a three-line Whip. It is important to have a Law Officer here so that we might have answers to some of the questions we raised yesterday and which the Under-Secretary of State found it difficult to answer.
  We were not told the whole story about the island yesterday by a long way. The figures that we were given were ambiguous, as was the information. We were informed that every year there are
  354
  90 to 100 births on the island. There is, therefore, now some indigenous population. We were told yesterday, however, that there was no indigenous population. There were 93 births in 1954 and an average of 90 to 100 babies are born every year and grow up as Christmas Islanders.
  Since 1st January, the island has been under the administration of the United Kingdom Government without any difficulty. It is proposed that the island should now go under the administration of the Australian Government, primarily because that country is responsible for importing the 350,000 tons of phosphates produced annually on the island and which are necessary for Australian agriculture. We accept that. What we are questioning is the constitutional position of the existing inhabitants of Christmas Island and other inhabitants who come there. The density is only 33 per square mile and it may become 169 or 200 per square mile of the 62 or 64 square miles comprising the island. I am not sure which is the correct figure, because the reference books give both figures.
  Yesterday, I asked some specific questions. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell us that the Chinese who are on the island today may opt for Singapore nationality and may continue that nationality, together with their British Commonwealth nationality, and that they may visit their families and friends in Singapore from time to time when their terms of duty expire. The hon. Gentleman said—the House should know this—that they may be offered registration as Australian citizens and that the Australian Government would look with sympathy at any request for entry into Australia. It is that last phrase about which I am concerned. [Interruption.] I can be concerned about it without the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) mumbling away. Let him get up and say what he has to say.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I should like to know whether the object of the hon. Member's speech is to cast any doubt on the adherence of the Australian Parliament and people to the rule of law and to respect for human personality.
  Mr. Orbach: No, not at all. I was trying to explain the position in Australia, which I have visited. I have discussed the Australian nationality laws with Australian statesmen. All parties in Australia are wedded to what is called the "White Australia" policy. One of my hon. Friends said yesterday that there was a colour bar in Australia. I deny that there is any colour bar in Australia. The aborigines, who are coloured, are accepted as full citizens and assisted by the Federal and State Governments. There is an Australian white policy which precludes other coloured persons from coming to the country, and that is the issue I am raising. I am worried that these people who may opt for Australian citizenship may become second-class Australian citizens. I want them to be full Australian citizens, with all the privileges and duties.
  I asked yesterday whether they would have the right to vote and the right to visit or to remain permanently on the mainland of Australia. If they are not to be given those rights, I suggest that this House would be doing a wrong thing in introducing a constitutional Measure which will produce discrimination against certain people who are today not subjected to such disabilities.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sorry that this Bill is being treated in this flippant manner by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Normally they claim to be far more interested in the Commonwealth and Empire than are hon. Members on these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wake him up."] I am quite sure that is the natural posture of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Sir T. O'Brien) when he is thinking deeply and is taking a great interest in what is being debated in this House.
  I think it remarkable that we should have this display of hilarity when we are discussing the affairs of a small but an important part of the Commonwealth. Hon. Members should not be so annoyed about the fact that we want to ask a few intelligent questions. If they read the Second Reading debate, they will agree that not a single question asked on that occasion was unnecessary. We sought enlightenment on that occasion, and I am sorry to say that we did not get it. The Under-Secretary of State did
  356
  his best, but his brief did not contain the information we wanted.
  I asked how many of the 2,400 people affected by this Bill had been consulted. I asked what would be the position of a child of Chinese parents. As this is to be Australian territory, I presume that he would be an Australian citizen, and one of the rights of citizenship is to be able to visit the mother country. I should like to know whether such a child would be able to go to Australia when this Bill becomes law. I beg hon. Members opposite to appreciate that the issues involved here are causing great concern and strain throughout the world. It is a question of discrimination to which we must find the answer if the Commonwealth is to develop into the happy and unified family which we desire.
  I therefore hope that before we send the Bill to another place the Minister will try to give us some enlightenment on the reasonable questions which we have asked. He will appreciate. I think, even though his hon. Friends do not, that what we said last night was constructive, that we in no way wished to delay the Bill and that all we sought were safeguards that the position had not been left in such a state that it would cause us headaches in the future. I hope that he will try to help us in the manner I have indicated.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. A. G. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said, this is a very important Bill which deals with a constitutional change, and it is right that it should be examined carefully. Last night my hon. Friends asked pertinent questions and tonight they have endeavoured to do the same, and it is right that they have done so.
  This is a case in which other Commonwealth countries are accepting their responsibility, and this is to be encouraged. For far too long the sole responsibility has been that of the United Kingdom. We are all at one in wishing to make sure that the well-being of the inhabitants of Christmas Island is well looked after.
  I am a little concerned about what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). These are all British subjects, and this means that those who come from Singapore and

  357
  are citizens of that territory have a right to go back there. There may be others who are not citizens of Singapore—they may be Chinese. I hope that the Minister will say that they will be given the opportunity, if they wish, to go back to China. If, on the other hand, they prefer to go to Singapore, I hope that he will make representations to the Government of Singapore to let them go there.
  Last night we were told that the Australian Government would give sympathetic consideration to those who wish to go to Australia. I hope that we can go further than that. In the same way in which any British subject in the Commonwealth can come to this country, I hope that it will be possible either for Australia to give the inhabitants of Christmas Island complete Australian citizenship or for them to make it possible for these people to go to Australia to obtain it and to live there, if they wish. If that is done it will give more satisfaction to my hon. Friends.
  I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North saw anything sinister about the transfer of the company's interests to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. This was done in 1949, before what he had in mind was developing as it is today, and I can assure him, as a member of the then Government, that it was done with the best intentions.
  10.39 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): It was a little unfair of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Ferny-hough) to say that he received no enlightenment from the debate last night, because he was frank enough to admit that when he came into the Chamber he was under the impression that the island which we were discussing was a different island situated many thousands of miles away in the middle of the Pacific.
  I think I gave a very full answer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, North. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) said, there is no question of a connection between Christmas Island and Chinese law. The law of Singapore is English law, and this law will continue to operate in Christmas Island until it is amended, again in accordance with the processes of English
  358
  law, by the Australian Parliament and Administration.
  I pointed out that the Australian Government have considerable experience of this sort of administrative problems, and I am sure that we can all place full reliance on the way in which they will carry out the responsibilities which they are to take over from us as a result of the Bill. I should like to emphasise the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) made. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his help in replying to a point made by one of his hon. Friends, when he said that, in fact, the transfer from the private company to the Phosphates Commission of New Zealand and Australia took place in 1949. I am quite certain that it was in the interests of both those countries that that process should be undertaken.
  Mr. Parkin: In the interests of Britain, it was a bad bargain.
  Mr. Alport: That is a point which the hon. Gentleman must take up with his hon. and right hon. Friends who were the Government at that time. The fact of the matter is that it was not only a convenient arrangement but it was one in the interests of the economic development of the island.
  Those who are born in the island after the transference has taken place will automatically become Australian citizens, but they will also be citizens either of the United Kingdom and Colonies or citizens of Singapore by descent. Therefore, as is the case for the majority of the inhabitants of the island, they will have dual nationality. The truth is that, as a result of the transfer, so far from the citizenship rights of the inhabitants being in any way damaged, on the whole, their citizenship rights will be extended.
  As regards the attitude of the Australian Government to their particular responsibilities and the privileges which Australian citizenship carries in this respect, I have already said, when we were discussing the Bill on Second Reading, that the Australian Government have undertaken that they will consider sympathetically any applications which may come from people living in Christmas Island to go to Australia. I will remind the House that, although it is perfectly

  359
  true that we have along tradition of free entry for British subjects into this country, that is not true of any other country of the Commonwealth. It would be unfair, I think, to criticise the Australian Government, or, indeed, the Government of any other Commonwealth country, because they do not necessarily follow the tradition which has been appropriate to the metropolitan country over a long period of history.
  In the circumstances, I hope that the House will accord to the Bill the Third Reading. It is a Bill which I believe to be in the interests not only of the individuals who live in a far away and small part of the Commonwealth and Empire, but in the interests of us in the United Kingdom and of Australia and New Zealand as well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  CLEAN AIR
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Alkali. &c. Works Order, 1958 (S.I. 1958, No. 497), dated 24th March, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled.
  This is a major Statutory Instrument under the Clean Air Act, 1956. It seeks to transfer from the local authorities to the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government the responsibility for discharges from industrial chimneys in all those industries which are listed in the Order. It would transfer the responsibility not only for noxious fumes and gases, but, in addition, for smoke, grit and dust, which have always been regarded as the responsibility of the local authorities, even before the strengthening of their powers under the Clean Air Act. It creates a situation—I stress the importance of the Order for this reason—which I believe to be exactly inimical to the trend of Conservative philosophy and policy over the last few years.
  My right hon. Friend, in the course of a speech only one hour ago, used these words. He said that it was the purpose of the Local Government Bill to make
  360
  "… stronger and more independent local government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1958; Vol. 588, c. 337.]
  My hon. Friends on this side have been peregrinating around the country during the last few months endeavouring to convince everyone that block grants are a very good thing, because they restore authority to local people in local councils. That is a view which I very strongly support. This particular Statutory Instrument does exactly the opposite. It takes away from the local authorities powers in regard to enforcement of clean air policy which, in large measure, have reposed with them over a long period of years and transfers those powers to a Department of Central Government in Whitehall.
  Here I must quote a few figures in support of the assertions which I have ventured to make to the House in the last few moments. The effect of this Order will be to transfer control over the smoke, grit, and dust emissions from factory chimneys in respect of 110 million tons of coal burned annually in the works of the types specified, and 17½ million tons of coke burned in those works annually, together with 2½ million tons of fuel oil; a total of 130 million tons burned each year in those works of the types delineated in the two Schedules of this Order. As the total inland fuel consumption of the United Kingdom is of the order of 220 million tons each year, it follows that the control of emissions in respect of 130 million tons represents more than 60 per cent. of that total.
  Thus, in this matter of enforcement and implementation of clean air policy, the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is going to be the senior partner and the local authority the junior partner. Like myself, many hon. Members sat through thirteen long and tedious sessions of the Committee stage of the Clean Air Bill in 1956, and the theme then running through those discussions was that the local authorities should have the major part in the implementation of this policy. We never envisaged that when the Minister came to lay his Orders in respect of the special processes he would be taking away from the local authorities 60 per cent. of the powers of enforcement in regard to the emission of smoke, grit, and dust from the works here specified.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: When the hon. Gentleman suggests that the majority of the Committee supported the view which he now suggests, I would remind him that I strongly dissented. I dissented from the view he now puts forward, and I want to know what there is in the Order to which he objects when there is an obligation on the Minister, having regard to Section 17 of the Act, which he supported.
  Mr. Nabarro: I have a very long memory, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and reads subsections (1) and (2) of Section 17 of the Act. If he wishes to be precise in the matter, I will tell him that it was in Standing Committee B on 13th March, 1956, when those of us who support my view, including the hon. Gentleman himself, defeated the Government by 19 votes to 16.
  But what I draw attention to this evening is the fact that many major local authorities are firmly opposed to the loss of powers implicit in this Order. These local authorities are the major industrial authorities. I would never defend a position whereby, for example, the Little Piddlecombe-on-the-Marsh rural district council should have control over the emissions from the chimneys of a major steel works, or a power station, or a carbonisation plant in its area. Such a small local authority has neither the facilities nor the technical skill, nor the resources available to control such a matter.
  What I have always said and wish again to emphasise this evening is that such major industrial authorities as can demonstrate to the Minister that they have the technical resources and facilities available to control the discharges from complex and highly technical processes carried on in the particular types of works delineated in the Order should have full autonomy in doing so and should not suffer this loss of powers inherent in the transfer of authority to the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Whitehall.
  I have mentioned that under this Order 60 per cent. of the control will repose with the Alkali Inspectorate and only 40 per cent. of the control in respect of smoke dust and grit with the local authorities. I demonstrated that point by
  362
  quoting the figures involved for fuel consumption. It would be fair to add, as I have endeavoured to sort the local authorities as between those which are qualified to do this difficult work and those which are not, that I believe that delegated power should be given only to the major authorities.
  I was asked in Committee to define what I meant by major authorities. I was in no way hesitant about the matter—[Interruption.]—and I am not hesitant this evening. This is a matter about which we should not be mealy-mouthed. We are supposed on this side of the House to believe in the maximum powers reposing with local people, in local authorities, in important questions of this kind. I suggest for full autonomy under Section 17 (2) of the Act, the cities of London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Birmingham, Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent and Cardiff. There may well be other places.
  Dr. Donald Johnson: Would not my hon. Friend include a city such as Carlisle, for instance?
  Mr. Nabarro: My hon. Friend will no doubt put an admirable case on behalf of the 70,000 population resident within the area of the County Borough of Carlisle. It may well be an irrefutable argument.
  The Minister has been extraordinarily ham-fisted in bringing this Order along to the House and transferring en bloc these massive powers from local authorities to a central Government Department without at the same time laying before the House Statutory Instruments under Section 17 (2) of the main Act delegating powers to such major local authorities as are able to demonstrate to him that they possess the necessary technical staff facilities, and resources to control these special processes. He should have laid Orders of that kind thereby enabling all to see that it is not the purpose of Her Majesty's Administration to strip these important powers from major local authorities, but to take them only in the case of minor authorities of a character which have not available the necessary staff resources, facilities and skill to carry them out.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: What about Kidderminster?
  Mr. Nabarro: No, not Kidderminster. I would not plead the case that Kidderminster should have Section 17 (2) autonomy; certainly not—nor Billericay, for example.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would include the major county councils. My reason may be a reinforcement to the argument my hon. Friend is using. The Alkali Inspectorate has completely failed to control effectively the noxious effusion and emissions from the oil refineries on Thames-side, to the detriment of the health and happiness of my constituents. Would my hon. Friend therefore include the major county councils?
  Mr. Nabarro: Time is limited. I commend to my hon. Friend the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. If he reads that with his customary avidity, he will find in it that the former Minister of Housing and Local Government, the present Minister of Defence, made that very point. He said in 1956 that there might well be industrial conurbations comprising a number of relatively small industrial authorities, each contiguous to one another, and in total they might represent an area well suited to have conferred on them the type of autonomy I recommend under Section 17 (2) of the main Act.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government, who investigated this complicated matter, further established a public inquiry two months ago to investigate the problem, and a report was made by Sir Frederick Armer, K.B.E., C.B., M.C. The Minister's decision letter of 6th January, 1958, fully recognised the point I am endeavouring to make concerning the need for autonomy to certain major authorities. In paragraph 6 of that letter he said:
  "It was stated on behalf of Sheffield and District Clean Air Committee that a knowledge of local conditions was essential for the proper control of industry. A local smoke inspectorate would possess this to a far greater extent than the Alkali Inspectorate. The staff employed in Sheffield and district were well qualified to deal with the technical problems of air pollution in the area, and there was clearly a case for the Minister to make an Order in due course applying Section 17 (2) of the Clean Air Act to their area."
  I stress "well qualified." It is unusual for a Cabinet Minister to respond to a Prayer, and my right hon. Friend has had an arduous day. I am grateful to
  364
  him for coming here this evening to reply to this important matter. I want to ask if he will give an undertaking when he replies that he will give very sympathetic consideration to the requests for autonomy under Section 17 (2) of the Act which will be coming to him in the next few months from such major authorities as I have referred to earlier.
  I want to refer to the strength of the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The majority of hon. Friends who have approached me about this Order have made the point about the remote control of the Inspectorate in Whitehall which is no effective substitute for the local public health and smoke inspectors who have expert knowledge and long experience of local conditions. Attention has been drawn by my hon. Friends, and I wish to reinforce the point, to the fact that the Alkali Inspectorate is relatively a weak body. On the day the Clean Air Act received the Royal Assent, 17th July, 1956, there were ten inspectors and the cost was £17,480. On 1st June, 1958, which is the date on which the Order we are discussing will begin to operate, they will have risen to 19 at a cost of £33,730, and during next year my right hon. Friend informs me that, in order to deal with the added responsibilities arising from the Order before us this evening, there will be added a further nine officers at a cost of £14,000 per annum. Thus, we anticipate that, by mid-1959, the strength of the Inspectorate will be 28 highly trained and qualified men, costing £47,730 per annum. Even that strength is likely to be inadequate to deal with the onerous duties put upon them by the transfer referred to in this Order.
  Do hon. Members in all parts of the House realise that every power station in the country, every gas works in the country, every steel works in the country, every aluminium works in the country, to say nothing of ceramics and many other works and processes, are now to be thrust into the hands of the Alkali Inspectorate? I believe the strength envisaged for the Inspectorate is quite inadequate and that these central Government inspectors may well largely duplicate the work for which trained men are already available in the services of local authorities which cover industrial areas. The arrangements proposed in the Order may waste technical staff and will

  365
  certainly suffer from the remoteness of Whitehall control.
  The inference that has been put to me by several local authorities and many of my hon. Friends, is that this is a measure of empire-building in Whitehall which ought to be resisted by all who have the interests of strong local government at heart. The Order will create divided control, doubt in the enforcement of clean-air policy, duplication of skilled manpower, and will undermine the success of clean-air policy, notably in black area conurbations, where many contiguous industrial local authorities' areas are involved.
  With the greatest regard and respect for the Minister, I say that he should no longer be the Minister responsible in view of the massive industrial interests involved. Responsibility should be transferred to the Minister of Power, who should be renamed the Minister for Clean Air and Power. I am glad to see the Paymaster-General in his place listening to these words of wisdom.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will give us the reassurances which are of great importance to hon. Gentlemen who sit for industrial areas. I commend to my right hon. Friend the words he used about one hour and twenty minutes ago, that our policy is to seek "stronger and more independent local government."
  11.3 p.m.
  Sir Charles Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
  The House has been delighted, whether we agreed with it or not, with the brilliant performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who always adds colour to our debates.
  Without wishing, to be offensive, I am surprised that the Minister has been obdurate and even obstinate from time to time, in spite of the expressed differences of opinion of his own supporters. At times he seems to think that he can make Orders and Clauses in Bills and ride roughshod over his supporters. During the passage of the Clean Air Bill, my hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that a number of hon. Members had voted against the Government on this matter. The Minister should have realised that the Order which he is
  366
  making tonight would not be universally popular among his supporters.
  There is no hurry about this matter. Nobody is pressing the Minister to introduce this Order to create these alkali inspectors and to replace local authority control.
  We Conservative back benchers believe that we are supporting a Conservative Government. We feel that we subscribe to our leaders in this respect and that it is Conservative policy to give more and more power to local authorities as opposed to the central Government. Because of the things which the Minister has had to attend to recently, like the Local Government Bill and the Rent Act, we can, I believe, detect a sort of sinister influence coming from the Ministry under his control of which he may not be aware.
  It is not only large industrial areas which will be affected by this Order. I wish to read an extract from a letter written by the Town Clerk of Eastbourne:
  "Although fortunately in Eastbourne there is very little industry of the category likely to produce atmospheric pollution, it will be noted that gas and coke works and power stations are now to be taken outside local authority control. It may well be that in future, if some nuisance arises as a result of atmospheric pollution either by the gas works or the power station in Eastbourne, the local authority will be powerless to deal with the matter."
  We in the smaller areas, and certainly in Eastbourne, which is a seaside resort, believe that the alkali inspectors at the Ministry will be far too busy dealing with the great industrial areas to take any notice of pollution which may affect the smaller towns and cities which are not wholly industrialised. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the Order.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I have put my name to this Prayer, but I hope that the Order will not be withdrawn, for reasons which I will give. First, I wish to correct an impression which may have been created by the speech of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) regarding the transfer of power from the local authorities to the Alkali Inspectorate. I am interested mainly in the metallurgic industries, and these industries have never been controlled by the local authorities in respect of the nuisance

  367
  caused by grit, smoke and dust. That was a matter which was debated during the Committee stage of the Clean Air Act.
  I shall not vote against the Orders, because if we defeated the Government there would be no control at all either by the Alkali Inspectorate or by local authorities over the metallurgical industries, for example. I use them as an illustration. If the Motion succeeded, there would be a vacuum in Clean Air control throughout the country and the people in charge of the metallurgical industries would be able to do exactly as they wished about the emission of smoke, grit, dust and fumes.
  Why did I put my name to the Motion? For one reason only—that during the Committee stage of the Bill we were successful in defeating the Government on behalf of the local authorities when we wanted—and I still want—the control of all pollutants in the atmosphere to be in the hands of local authorities. But praying against the Orders will not bring that about. The Orders introduce for the first time control over certain industries which in the past have been allowed to do exactly as they wished. We face that situation now in law, and we cannot alter it. Control is in somebody's hands. We must accept that fact and make the best of it. Clauses 17 (1) and (2) were moved from these benches and supported by the hon. Member for Kidderminster as an alternative to the impasse in which we were placed when we defeated the Government in Committee.
  We are faced with the present law and all its implications, but I want to put certain questions to the Minister. First, in Committee, after we had defeated the Minister, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, in accepting Clause 17, said:
  "The Standing Committee was concerned had competent staff and facilities, and where mainly to see that where a local authority in all other circumstances it was desirable, the authority should be empowered to carry out these functions by itself. The Committee was concerned that in those cases the Minister should be able to transfer the responsibilities to the local authority in question."—"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April. 1956; Vol. 551, c. 36–7.]
  That was in the discussion on Clause 17. Is the Minister prepared to accept the spirit of the statement made by his predecessor and give to those local
  368
  authorities with the competent staff to deal with the problem of the scheduled industries the power given to him under Clause 17 (2) of the Act? Rather than defeat the Government tonight on something which cannot be altered because it is the law, assurances from the Minister that he will sympathetically consider investing authority under the Act in the local authorities in respect of these special industries would, in my opinion, meet the situation.
  The hon. Member for Kidderminster was a very long time going through the list of cities of this country before he reached the City of Sheffield, but I venture to suggest—I say this not because I am a representative of the aity—that there is no other place in the country which has paid so much attention to the problem of air pollution as has Sheffield. We have not only five fully qualified inspectors to deal with the problem of smoke, grit, dust and fumes, but we have behind us also as advanced a section of any university in this particular matter as there is anywhere in the kingdom. Quite respectfully, I say that, in the City of Sheffield, more has been done by qualified people than has been done anywhere else in the country. I use Sheffield as an illustration. There are other cities and towns where there are qualified inspectors to deal with these problems.
  The Minister must now answer this question. How is he to deal with this huge additional list of industries, including all the metallurgical industries, with the comparatively few alkali inspectors at his disposal? The Order is to come into force in June. Frankly, he has not enough qualified alkali inspectors to deal with the problems of smoke, grit and dust, in addition to the problem of fumes, throughout all these additional industries, let alone in those scheduled under former regulations.
  I support the hon. Member for Kidderminster in asking the Minister to assure the House that he will give sympathetic consideration to the position of those areas which can prove that they have the qualified inspectorate to deal with these things. It was by the tacit consent of the Committee and of the Minister that Section 17 (2) was accepted as the alternative to the complete defeat of the Government on this issue of the Alkali Inspectorate.

  369
  I want to be quite fair to the Minister. While the hon. Member for Kidderminster has been putting down Questions on the Order Paper, I have been quietly writing to the Minister. I have asked him what is to be the position of Sheffield if this Order is passed. Until it is passed, no one can apply for permission. I have arranged with the authorities in the City of Sheffield that, if the Order is passed tonight, they will immediately apply for Ministerial permission, under Section 17 (2) of the Act. But there is one doubt in my mind. I will at once pay a tribute to those in charge of the steel industry in Sheffield, that many of the steel companies in the city are far in advance of anything provided for in the Clean Air Act; many of the best employers are introducing innovations in their works which bring them completely outside the scope of the Act. But for all those who are doing this beneficent work, there are others who are not. The Act of Parliament was passed to prevent their being able to take advantage of that situation.
  It is in the interests of the good element in management that the Minister should give Ministerial consent to Sheffield controlling its own smoke, grit and dust, even under the new measures to be brought in. It has been suggested to me—I do not know what force there is in it—that there is a desire on the part of the managements of some of the steel factories that there shall not be Ministerial consent to such a city as Sheffield controlling its own atmosphere.
  A very important question is raised here. Has there been any representation by any department of the metallurgical industry in the City of Sheffield imploring the Minister not to apply Subsection (2) of Section 17 of the Clean Air Act to the City of Sheffield? If such representations have been made, they have not been made in the interests of the city or of its steel industry, nor have they been made in the interests of developing this idea of clean air throughout the length and breadth of this country.
  Will the Minister answer please the questions which I have put to him and give a categorical assurance that in applying Section 17—which gives him the power to schedule these industries as he has done under the Alkali Orders—he will do so sympathetically towards the local authorities, proving that he has the
  370
  necessary qualified Inspectorate? May I just add that woe betide him if he does give this power to any other local authority and leaves out the City of Sheffield.
  11.23 p.m.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: It is quite true that we discussed this matter at great length during the Committee stage, and it is also true that some of us have quite clearly fixed the fact in our minds that there is a great difference between the functions of the Alkali Inspectorate and our smoke inspectors and public health inspectors. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is at fault when he asks for a great number of alkali inspectors. They are not there, because there are not the people available for training; and, in any case, they are not there to see if there is smoke pollution. They are not there to look at a nuisance or to investigate it, but to cure it when other people with less knowledge and training and understanding of modern techniques cannot do the job.
  The matter about which I wish to speak, however, is the narrow issue of a local authority like Stoke-on-Trent, the centre of the largest number of pottery factories in the world. It had a terrible problem in the past, but now we are moving towards a solution. The authorities there feel that control over smoke, so far as factory chimneys are concerned, is taken from them and handed to the Alkali Inspectorate. They give arguments which I personally find impossible to controvert, and when I wrote to the Minister on the subject, his Parliamentary Secretary answered explaining that no serious harm would be done. I had hoped that the Minister would have agreed that the letter really has not been phrased correctly. I should like to quote from the letter, which stated that in 1938 we were consuming in the pottery industry more than a million tons of raw coal. Now consumption is down to about a quarter of a million tons as a result of new methods of firing, either by gas or electrical equipment. It is stated that these appliances are available to everyone and that they are more economical to run and cheaper to install.
  They also point out that 46 per cent. of the pottery factories are now smokeless, that only 16 per cent. are not smokeless and that 38 per cent. are partly

  371
  smokeless and moving on towards becoming completely free from the power to pollute the general atmosphere.
  Mr. H. Fraser: A great deal of that pollution is issued by the power station in my constituency, is it not?
  Dr. Stross: I was speaking only about the pottery industry. I could not ask for any local authority to take over power stations, because they do not have enough knowledge to do so. I do not think that the average local authority, certainly neither Stafford nor Stone, would have inspectors able to deal with obligations arising from power stations.
  We have six inspectors in Stoke-on-Trent—more than Sheffield, and we are a smaller city. We take the problem of smoke pollution very seriously. Among our female workers in the pottery industry, most of whose workers are female, the morbidity rate from tuberculosis is twice as high as for the general population, and for the men in the industry it is even higher. We are therefore very sensitive to atmospheric pollution and to us this is a matter of life and death. As we are winning the struggle, we do not want anything to check us.
  Virtually every great firm in the industry is smokeless, because it pays to be smokeless. It is economically sound, and it is of great benefit to the rest of us. If control is handed over to the Alkali Inspectorate, it will be remote control, whether from Birmingham or Manchester. I remember the Chief Inspector very well—I read science with him—and I am sure that he would be the last person to say that we do not know how to deal with smoke pollution in the specialised difficulties in the potteries.
  We have never closed down a factory, never borne harshly on our manufacturers. We accept that in the heavy clay industry, in the firing of certain types of brick and roofing tiles, there is bound to be some smoke. With all that, we have a magnificent research centre and the liaison among the centre, the manufacturers and the council is very friendly. Why should not we be allowed to continue as we are doing, confidently expecting that within a very few years we shall be able to have a completely clean atmosphere, obtained by agreement, throughout the city? It would not be to the detriment of any
  372
  manufacturer, but inevitably to the benefit of each and every one of them.
  There is no time for me to quote the letter sent to me by the Parliamentary Secretary——
  Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. An unusual situation has arisen with this Prayer which has not occurred in previous Prayers, certainly in the lifetime of this Parliament. Can you give the House some guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Under Standing Orders, we are compelled to adjourn our discussion of this Prayer at exactly 11.30. Am I right in assuming that we resume discussion tomorrow evening at the end of business on the Order Paper, and that if that business should run after 11.30, there would not be time for the resumed discussion of this Prayer? Would the situation then be that we should resume this debate on Thursday evening? As the fortieth Parliamentary day since the Order was made on 27th March is Monday next, 19th May——
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, being of opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the Motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)), and the debate stood adjourned till Tomorrow.

  TRAFFIC, CROYDON
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  11.31 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I wish to draw attention to the effect which the London (Waiting and Loading) (Restriction) Regulations, which are due to come into force on 1st June, are likely to have on shopping centres in Croydon.
  I should like to make quite clear that I am not opposed to the Regulations as a whole, or indeed in principle. My point is essentially a constituency one. Incidentally, I think I should say that the constituency most affected is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. R. Thompson), who is precluded by his office from taking part in

  373
  this debate. I certainly could not associate myself with the Prayer for annulment of the Regulations which is on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and some of his hon. Friends.
  The House should be made aware that Croydon Council and Croydon Chamber of Commerce are strongly of opinion that the Regulations in their present form will cause serious inconvenience to the shopping public over a wide area in south London and in Surrey and will cause loss of money to shopkeepers. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation for bringing him here at this late hour to listen to this debate when we all appreciate that his Department is working under great strain and in a period of anxiety. At the same time, I hope he will agree that it is only right that the point of view of interests affected should be properly ventilated.
  There is a second point which I think I should make clear before I come to the question of Croydon's special position. These waiting Regulations cannot be said to promote road safety. It is perfectly true that every year a number of incautious people meet their death by stepping out into the roadway from behind parked vehicles. Against that, even more of us owe our lives to being able to reach the shelter afforded by a parked vehicle before we can be run down. Moreover, it is common ground that parked vehicles slow down the flow of traffic. That, indeed, is the reason for the new Regulations and none can seriously deny that the slower the speed of traffic the safer the roads become. I am not arguing that we should deliberately impede traffic in this manner because it may well be held that the extra risk is an acceptable price to pay for higher speed, but I make the point that discussion of the merits of the new Regulations must not be prejudiced by any pretence that they are likely to be a contribution to road safety.
  Croydon's position in relation to these Regulations is an unusual one. Not only does the main London—Brighton road run through the county borough, but the borough as a whole can almost be described as a gangway through which a large number of people who live in Surrey and parts of Kent pass on their
  374
  way to and from work in London. In recent years a great shopping centre has been developed in Croydon and this centre attracts countless thousands of people from the surrounding districts.
  Unfortunately, these shops are situated almost exclusively on roads which are affected by the new Regulations. Most of them are open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., so that parking will in future be prohibited throughout all the shopping hours. A great deal of shopping by car takes place between 9 and 11.30, especially by people on their way to work and by elderly people. A great deal of the roadways on which the principal shops front are by no means narrow. In the opinion of the local authority, the new restrictions will do very little to relieve the traffic congestion, which is not caused mainly by waiting in the yellow band areas before 11 a.m. That is Croydon's case against these Regulations.
  I recognise that there is another side to the argument, and that there is much ground for the Minister's view that there should be uniform restrictions throughout the London area because they are easier to enforce. That argument would be more convincing if there were not already a number of exceptions provided for in the draft Regulations. I recognise that it will be open to the local authority to propose local variations of the Regulations after experience of them. In this connection the Croydon local authority is disturbed by the Minister's statement, made in a letter to it, that he would not expect such suggestions would be presented to him "for a considerable while." Bearing in mind that "an early date" is official language meaning a year, "considerable while" may well come to mean a decade.
  May I make two suggestions? Will the Government do their best to deter people from driving to and from their work in Central London in large cars? In normal times an excellent public transport system is available. Will the police be told to enforce the parking restrictions with the same strictness at the points of arrival as it is proposed to do along the routes leading to them? Will the speed restrictions along the routes be strictly enforced in the future?
  Cannot some more active and imaginative steps be taken to improve parking facilities? I know it is difficult in a town

  375
  whose centre is already over-built, like Croydon, but are we sure that shops and offices are given sufficient financial incentives to provide parking spaces at the expense of their own ground floors? Surely there are long stretches of road where cars could be allowed to park where the pavement is now situated, provided that overhead footways were constructed at first-floor level. I understand that the cost of such an undertaking would be about £70,000 per mile, in addition to which there would be the expense of making entrances to shops on the first-floor level.
  Schemes of this kind would make a considerable difference to the parking space in the main approach routes to London. The cost is not prohibitive. One knows towns where raised footpaths already exist and where development on the lines I suggest is possible. These are the sort of positive steps which I should like to feel were being taken, but with the jungle of committees and councils and Government Departments concerned with the varying facets of this problem, one is not inspired with any confidence that a great deal will be achieved in the near future.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Frederic Harris: I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). I suggest to the Minister that the presence of the three hon. Members who represent Croydon constituencies demonstrates the genuine concern felt in our great town about the effect of these Regulations when they come into force. I share the regret of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Minister had to come here tonight at this late hour, but that is not our fault.
  It seems to me almost impossible for the Minister to make Regulations of this kind with quite such a general basis of application. It would be right to claim that every part of suburbia, and virtually every street, has different traffic conditions. Certainly in Croydon, as I know from personal experience, the traffic problem in one street is different from that in the next. I served long enough as a member of the Croydon Borough Council to know that this is essentially a local problem and I submit that the view of the borough council which, by
  376
  the way, is a local highway authority, should be respected and complied with as far as possible. The council has special local knowledge.
  The council objects strongly to Regulation 3 taken in conjunction with Part 1 of the First Schedule. The centre of Croydon, including the main shopping area, is affected, as are such well-known streets as Addiscombe Road, Church Way, Crown Hill, George Street, the main Croydon High Street, London Road, North End, Park Lane and Wellesley Road. At the moment cars are permitted to park there up to 11.30 in the morning, but under the proposed Regulations they will be prohibited from doing so from 8.30 a.m. onwards. This will apply from Monday until Saturday and about twenty-two streets will be affected. This, I submit, is an impossibly rigid Regulation. It demonstrates a lack of appreciation of local conditions by the Civil Service. In some ways we are always ready to criticise the Civil Service, but this is an example of the Civil Service at its worst.
  The traffic problem in Croydon should not be a major problem. In the first place, there is a by-pass available for most of the through traffic seeking to proceed from outside the main yellow band areas in both a northerly and a southerly direction. Secondly, the new Fairfield Bridge has relieved pressure on the George Street area. Over and above this, the traffic lights themselves are a controlling factor of the traffic flow. I submit to the Minister that the existing lay-out of the Croydon town centre, although containing massive shopping facilities and a substantial number of important business offices, too, has from West Croydon to Sparkbrook Road and from High Street to Park Lane no nearby off-street short-term waiting facilities. This is not the case in most yellow band shopping areas elsewhere.
  The Croydon Council has endeavoured to convey its views to the Minister in the clearest possible terms, but on the face of it these views have been completely ignored. I feel that the rather indiscriminate handling of the matter is similar to the handling of the situation in certain central London areas, for instance, Lambeth, Paddington, Westminster and many more areas on the fringe of the London traffic area, such

  377
  as Croydon. In certain of those areas, as distinguished in the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Schedules to the Regulations, the Minister has fixed as many different periods of prescribed hours as there are Schedules of streets. I therefore find it difficult to understand the position. How can the Minister possibly insist that there should be uniformity of treatment throughout the whole of the Greater London traffic area? Surely this is a nonsensical approach to the problem.
  Croydon's general view and that of the Croydon Council in particular, and the view held by many important local bodies such as the various Chambers of Commerce to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred—and, I venture to suggest, the view of the majority of Croydon people, particularly those who go to business and shop in Croydon—is that the local requirements in the matter should not be overriden by a Minister in this arbitrary fashion. We are submitting to the Minister that he should listen to informed local opinion and adjust his Regulations accordingly. There is so much variety in the fourteen Schedules of streets issued with the Regulations as to make nonsense of the Minister's plea that the restrictions must come into operation consistently, all at the same time throughout the whole of the Metropolitan district.
  For my part, I ask the Minister to reconsider the views which Croydon has submitted to him and if possible to amend his Regulations further. I also make a final personal plea that people are persistently saying to me in Croydon that the police have a tremendous job in dealing with crime, particularly in present-day conditions, and that all these additional Regulations add to the weight of their work in the Croydon area. It is difficult to see how they can cope with all the additional work which will be involved in controlling cars under these Regulations in our great towns. I respectfully hope that the Minister can give considerable weight to the views which we are putting to him tonight.
  11.50 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must
  378
  congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) on their speeches this evening about the famous county borough of Croydon. Both they and my colleague, the third Member for Croydon, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. R. Thompson) are, of course, well known for their concern for the welfare and interests of Croydon. I am only sorry that the Regulations for which I have responsibility should have caused them anxiety. I am conscious of a sense of gratitude to Croydon. It is not so long ago that an admirable exhibition on transport was arranged in a well-known store in the High Street there, with a particularly good feature on road safety. I was very grateful to Croydon for putting this on. It was most helpful to us.
  The Regulations before the House now—which are, indeed, to be prayed against next week—the London (Waiting and Loading) (Restriction) Regulations, 1958, will have the effect of consolidating all waiting restrictions in the Metropolitan Police District, and will make some changes which will affect Croydon, as has been said. They will have the broad effect there of advancing the starting time for waiting restrictions from 11.30 a.m. to 8.30 a.m., leaving the finishing time where it is.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. The Prayer is down for Thursday next week. This is anticipation. The debate cannot proceed. I was not aware of it, until the Minister informed me.
  Mr. Nugent: You apprehend, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is impossible for me to answer the debate raised by my hon. Friends without reference to it, because that is what we are discussing.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that the Regulations are to be prayed against next week. The subject is being discussed now, and we cannot, of course, do that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Pit Props
  Pit Props
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Protective Goods)
  Purchase Tax (Protective Goods)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Seaside Resorts (Pollution of Sea Water)
  Seaside Resorts (Pollution of Sea Water)
  St. John's Church, Smith Square
  St. John's Church, Smith Square
UGANDA
  Municipal Councillors (Election).
  Municipal Councillors (Election).
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution (White Paper)
  Constitution (White Paper)
  Mkushi Scheme (Land Settlement)
  Mkushi Scheme (Land Settlement)
EAST AFRICA
  Makerere College (Extra-Mural Studies)
  Makerere College (Extra-Mural Studies)
SIERRA LEONE
  Constitution
  Constitution
TANGANYIKA
  Immigrants (Mauritians)
  Immigrants (Mauritians)
KENYA
  Personal Tax Ordinance
  Personal Tax Ordinance
  TYPEWRITERS (SUPPLY AND SALE)
  TYPEWRITERS (SUPPLY AND SALE)
  UNITED STATES (McMAHON ACT)
  UNITED STATES (McMAHON ACT)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONFERENCE)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (CONFERENCE)
  DEFENCE POLICY
  DEFENCE POLICY
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Crimes of Violence (Victims)
  Crimes of Violence (Victims)
EMPLOYMENT
  Weardale Quarrymen
  Weardale Quarrymen
  International Labour Organisation (Resolution)
  International Labour Organisation (Resolution)
SOUTH AFRICA
  Uranium Purchases
  Uranium Purchases
SCOTLAND
  Westfield Park Home, Dalkeith (Patients)
  Westfield Park Home, Dalkeith (Patients)
  Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries (Report)
  Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries (Report)
ROADS
  Road Safety (Dual Carriageways)
  Road Safety (Dual Carriageways)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD TERRINGTON on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  2.36 p.m.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, No. 91 of the Standing Orders of the House on Private Bill Procedure reads as follows:
  "The Chairman of Committees may, if he thinks fit, direct the attention of the House … to any special circumstances relative to any Private Bill which may appear to him to require it."
  In my opinion, there are in relation to the Kent County Council Bill certain special circumstances which it is desirable that I should bring to the attention of the House so that the House can, if it sees fit, take any action it wishes to take.
  This Bill is a Private Bill; it has had a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and is now in Committee, but has not yet had a Third Reading. I will, if I may, quote some figures and statistics concerning the Bill, and I should like to say that if, perchance, any of these are not quite accurate, which I am afraid may be the case, the reason is that clauses have been struck out of the Bill and other clauses have been added—in fact, it is almost true to say that daily the number of clauses is different. As deposited, the Bill consisted of 442 clauses and six Schedules. In my view, for reasons which I hope to relate later, this Bill is in part objectionable. One thing, in particular, that I want to emphasise is that I have not the slightest objection to the Bill on account of its length. I am sure your Lordships agree that it would be utterly wrong to object in any way to any part of the Bill merely because it was a long one. It
  234
  would be just as wrong to do that as it would to pass a Bill into law, irrespective of its merits, just because, as I am perfectly satisfied has happened in this case, an immense amount of trouble had been taken in the preparation and drafting of the Bill by a panel of experts who had worked tremendously hard and for a long time upon it. And I should like to pay tribute to those who have taken such great trouble over this Bill.
  The real point I am trying to make this afternoon, my Lords, is that this Bill confers powers on authorities other than the Promoters, admittedly not in a manner which is unprecedented, but to an extent and on a scale which I venture to say is unprecedented. To justify the attitude which I have taken up, I should like to quote a few more statistics. This Bill consists of 17 Parts, and it can be truthfully said that only one of those 17 Parts is the sole concern of the Promoters—the Kent County Council. Only 46 of the 442 clauses exclusively concern the Promoters. Of the other clauses, 136 are in part the concern of the Promoters and in part the concern of other authorities. An example of that is to be found in the clauses dealing with highways which would enable the district councils to do certain things on highways, the Kent County Council being the highway authority; and as the Kent County Council is the highway authority, it can truthfully be said that the County Council is interested in those clauses. But 238 other clauses—that is, rather more than half the Bill, in terms of clauses—confer powers on other authorities exclusively, and not upon the County Council at all. Then, in terms of the number of powers conferred, this Bill altogether confers 519 powers on somebody, only 93 of which are conferred upon the Promoters, the remaining 426 being conferred upon other authorities.
  I have ventured to quote those figures to try to show the scale of the problem under this Bill. In Kent there are 56 districts, including boroughs, and 251 parish councils, all of which are concerned with the Bill. In passing, I would also make this point, which I think is significant. Out of the 56 districts there are 38—namely, the urban districts and the boroughs—which, under the Local Government Acts, would have had to hold town meetings, in order to get the powers which they are getting under this

  235
  Bill; but they do not have to hold them because they are getting the powers under this Bill. In other words, by getting those powers in this way they escape the necessity for holding town meetings. The whole question of town meetings is one upon which strong views are held by both sides, and I am not going to say what my views are about them; but I think it right to mention that the necessity to hold town meetings is escaped by this process under this Bill. Whether that ought to be so is a matter of opinion.
  To this question to which I am referring this afternoon there are two sides; and, unfortunately for my own peace of mind, I must admit that I find some of the arguments for these clauses attractive. That is what makes the matter more difficult. May I mention some of the arguments that are put forward in favour of these clauses being allowed in this Bill? First of all, I confess at once that there is nothing in this Bill which is not precedented. I cannot point, I own, to a single clause in this Bill which has never been in a Bill before. That I admit; but I am going to say that what matters is not the fact that there is precedent but the fact that, as I have said before, the scale of this is something quite different from what we have been accustomed to in the past.
  The story of this matter begins in the year 1921, when two clauses in a Private Bill promoted by the Middlesex County Council began the process of conferring powers by one authority upon others. That process has been greatly expanded, until to-day we are confronted with this Bill which does that on a scale never before contemplated. Precedents, of course, properly guide the House, but, as I understand it, they do not bind the House. The House is not bound by the precedents of another Bill as, for example, a law court is bound by the decision of a court higher than itself. Then it is said that if these clauses are allowed it will be an economy; that to do this by one Bill will save a great deal of money, as compared to, let us say, having fifty-six district council Bills. That, on the face of it, is an impressive point; but, of course, there is no saying that many of the fifty-six districts would have promoted Private Bills if this Bill had not been doing it for them. And, of course, one must observe that
  236
  if it is an economy to have one Bill instead of fifty-six in the county, it would be still more of an economy to have one Public Bill to do it for the whole country.
  Then it is said that this process will conduce to uniformity—uniformity within the county. On the face of it, that again is an impressive point. But in the country, as opposed to the county, it will, in my submission, produce the opposite of uniformity, because, as I shall mention in a moment, what we shall have if this process goes on—and let us face this fact—is in England and Wales at least, if not in Scotland, a different law in every county. Finally, it is said, among other things, by the Promoters, that the good government of the county is the concern of the County Council. One can understand that sentiment, but I can find nothing in the Local Government Acts to support it. There is nothing which shows that in 1888, when county councils were formed, it was the intention of Parliament to make that the function of the county councils. So I suggest that, however attractive that view may be in theory, it is not really the national policy that county councils should undertake this work and become, in effect, miniature Parliaments.
  I turn to the case against the clauses, and I repeat, with emphasis, that the length of this Bill is not one of the points against it. But, as I have said, there has been nothing like this on the scale and in this degree before, and in my view that makes it desirable for the House to reexamine the procedure that it is sought to adopt. Let me, if I may, begin right at the beginning and put this proposition. Petitions for Private Bills are requests for exceptions to the general law to be made for the benefit of the authorities or persons who present the Petitions to Parliament. If that is a sound proposition, your Lordships will see that we have come a long way from it when we consider this Bill. May I give an example of a genuine Private Bill such as was contemplated when this process was first begun? To-morrow afternoon your Lordships will be invited to pass into law a Bill to authorise the closing of a churchyard, a single churchyard in a single city, and the erection upon part of that churchyard of a building. The Bill is necessary because under the general law that would be illegal; and so a Private Bill is sought to be passed by Parliament to authorise it.

  237
  That, as I conceive it, is a genuine example of a Private Bill. But how different is that from the present Bill that we are considering!
  There is another principle that I must mention which is very well known and observed in Parliament: that the exceptions to the general law are justified only if there is proof of local need. That is a doctrine which has always, as I understand it, pertained in both Houses of Parliament since this business began. I would go so far as to say that this doctrine of local need is the very cornerstone of Private Bill legislation, and that there is a likelihood of that being knocked away by the passage of a Bill such as this, if it is allowed to proceed in its entirety. I have said something about precedents; but the precedents for this that have happened before are a mere trickle compared to the flood that will be allowed to run if these clauses are allowed in this Bill; and if they are allowed there is no knowing what other Bills may follow, promoted by other counties. This much is sure: if this flood is allowed to run, there will be no stemming it, no damming it in the future, because it will be said that it has been allowed now.
  So I justify this intervention in your Lordships' business by saying that if this process is to be terminated it must be now or never. I can see that it may be right that it should not be, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is at least worth considering whether it should be. In this Bill, the Kent County Council Bill, no one pretends that there is local need, proved by all the authorities, for all the powers which the Bill gives them—I do not think anybody really contends that for a moment. So it brings us right up against a breach of this well-worn principle.
  My Lords, I come to another principle that I should like to put before the House and it is this: that the local need to which I have just referred should not be proved by one party on behalf of another. Again I admit that there are precedents to the contrary; I cannot deny it. But I say that that is a principle which still pertains and is observed, at least when possible. This Bill offends that principle in a great many respects. If these clauses are allowed, as I have suggested before, we may reach this situation; that it could truthfully be said that in this country there was a different law in every county,
  238
  just as one says now, I think with truth, that in the United States there is a different law in every State. I would ask the House whether that is a situation which it desires to bring about. I ought to mention that also before your Lordships' House now are two other county Bills, promoted by the Counties of Surrey and Essex, both of which, although to a very much smaller degree, contain clauses of exactly the same description. It is said that if this process is allowed it will produce complexity of administration, and that that is in itself an undesirable result. It is fair to say that the Promoters' argue that the contrary will be the case, but I will leave your Lordships to judge who is likely to be right on this matter.
  I should like now to quote one example of a clause in the Kent County Council Bill which illustrates what I have been trying to say. I will refer to Clause 168 of the Bill, which is a clause to confer upon all the parish councils in the county—that is, 240 bodies—the power to provide life-saving appliances. We shall all agree that, taken by itself and out of its context, that is probably a very desirable thing to do. But, save in one town in the country, which happens, curiously, to be in Kent, I am informed that that power is not exercised by any local authority and certainly not by any parish council. The question arises whether it is right for Parliament to give the power to all the parish councils in Kent, and at the same time not give it to any other council in any other county; to have it in Kent but not in Surrey or Sussex, the adjoining counties.
  The question must be asked: If this is a desirable power why should it not be put in a Public Bill, applying to the whole of England and Wales, at least? It is often said, with some justice, that there is little or no chance of Parliament or the Government or a Ministry producing a Public Bill to do this, that or the other. But I would remind the House that in the last Session of Parliament there was introduced a Public Bill which conferred powers upon all the parish councils in the country: that was the Parish Councils Act, 1957. It conferred seven new powers, but the power to provide lifesaving appliances was not one of them. My Lords, it could have been, but nobody suggested it; nobody moved an Amendment to that effect. That is the point I

  239
  am trying to bring home. Now we have, in the very next session of Parliament, this request that this power should be granted, not to all parish councils but to parish councils in one county only. This Bill confers sixteen new powers on the parish councils of Kent. The Parish Councils Act of last year, more modestly, conferred only seven on the parish councils of England and Wales. I will mention very briefly one other clause, a clause with which we shall all have sympathy, I feel quite certain, and that is the clause to give the parish councils power to plant trees. Nobody, or hardly anybody, would deny that that is in itself desirable; but, again, why only in Kent?
  I think I have said enough—I hope I have—to justify me in asking your Lordships to consider this point before we go further. I ought to say here that it is my intention, subject always to the decision of the House, to make this rule in respect of this Bill:
  "A county council should not confer on local authorities or any other authority functions in which the county council has no interest."
  I would emphasise those last three words, "has no interest." They, of course, admit clauses in which the county council has some interest, however small it may be. It will be my endeavour to interpret this rule, if it is to apply, broadly and liberally; to consider every clause in the Bill in accordance with it, and in borderline cases to give the benefit of the doubt to the Promoters. Any clause with any county council interest will receive sympathetic consideration, but it is no use my denying that if this rule is applied a fair number of clauses—it is impossible to say how many—will not be allowed. Therefore, I thought I ought to draw the attention of the House to the fact.
  My Lords, I ought to add that I have not done this without consultation with the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place. I have consulted him about this proposition and about this Bill, and he has authorised me to say that he is in complete agreement with what is proposed and with the policy which it is intended to pursue; and he is making a statement to-day to the Members of another place (I think it will actually be a written statement), in accordance with the custom of the House. So that, whatever be the merits or the demerits of it,
  240
  at least I can say that on this point the two houses are at one so far.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The two Chairmen.
  LORD MERTHYR: I beg your Lordships' pardon—the two Chairmen; I accept the correction.
  My Lords, I apologise for taking so much of your Lordships' time this afternoon, but as your Lordships know, I am not very experienced in this duty and I thought it right, before taking any irrevocable action, to tell the House what the intention was. I realise that the final arbiter in this matter is the House itself; I was going to say that in conclusion. It is what the House says that will be done. There it is. I thought it right to make this statement before going any further.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, may I ask one question before the noble Lord sits down? Some of us who have some experience of these Bills are, I think, a little confused in our minds as to what is the procedure the noble Lord is asking the House to follow.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am not asking the House to make any change of procedure; I am merely making a statement. I am acquainting the House with something of what is going on, because I felt that I did not want to run the slightest risk of being criticised later (I will be quite frank with the House), after something had been done, if it was considered wrong. I am not moving anything; I am merely telling the House what is happening in respect of one particular Bill before the House which I thought of sufficient importance to justify that course.
  3.4 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for having made this statement. He has made it in a lucid and balanced manner and I think we understand exactly what he has in mind. The difficulty that we on this side find ourselves in is that we have had no warning of what the noble Lord was going to say; and he will, I am sure, agree that what he has said is extremely controversial in many respects. I do not propose to-day to enter into any controversy on most of the subjects that he has dealt with, but I would instance, for example, the Standing Order that he is

  241
  proposing to put to the House. I imagine that he proposes at some future time to invite us to pass a new Standing Order.
  LORD MERTHYR: Not necessarily.
  LORD SILKIN: Well, I thought he suggested that a county council should not confer on any authority functions in which the county council has no interest I would suggest straight away that, whether he does it by way of inviting us to approve a new Standing Order or whether it becomes a principle upon which the Standing Committees will act, it is extremely controversial, and I should like as long an opportunity as possible to consider it, to consult with our colleagues in another place (because, as the noble Lord has said, they are as much affected as we are) and to be able to come to a conclusion before any irrevocable step is taken, either on the Kent County Council Bill or on any other Bill.
  Perhaps I ought to make one or two observations. The noble Lord has given Hi what purports to be a balanced statement. I have heard a good many balanced statements presented in this House and eventually the authority has come down on the wrong side; and it can happen in this case as well. But, fundamentally, I can see no objection at all to a county council coming to Parliament and asking for powers which no other county council has. It seems to me that it is a most desirable thing. When the noble Lord told us in the beginning that he was not complaining about the number of clauses or about the length of the Bill, I presume he meant that he was not complaining about the number of new powers that were being sought, otherwise his statement has no meaning. If these powers are desirable powers—I took him to say that—then it means that there is no objection because there happen to be a large number of them. The question therefore is whether it is desirable that the Kent County Council, or any other county council, should have these powers on their merits.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, because that is not quite what I was trying to say. The question is not whether the Kent County Council should have powers which no other county council has. The question is whether the
  242
  other authorities in the County of Kent should be given by the county council promoting the Bill powers which no other authorities in any other county have. I hope I have made that clear.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, if I may intervene, I think we are in danger of getting into a debate where there is no Motion before the House. Under Standing Orders the Chairman of Committees has properly reported to the House what he was intending to do. The Standing Order, as I read it, says that the Chairman
  "… may, if he thinks fit, direct the attention of the House, or the Committee to which the Bill is referred, to any special circumstances relative to any Private Bill which may appear to him to require it."
  He has done that. I do not believe that the noble Lord opposite is in fact going to enter into a debate, but I should have thought the proper way, if we are to have a debate, would be either for the noble Lord, after consideration, to put down a Motion on the general principle raised by my noble friend, or else, when the Bill is reported to the House, to have a debate at that stage. I think it would be much better to have a debate when there is something before the House than to have it now.
  LORD SILKIN: I appreciate that, and I agree, with respect, that that is the proper course. All I was trying to do in the few remarks I wanted to make, was to give a few illustrations of the sort of thing which we might raise on the occasion of a debate. I want to emphasise the fact that there might be considerable controversy about this point, and not really to debate the matter. I would ask the Government to give us an assurance that they will not take any irretrievable step, in connection with the Kent County Council Bill and of course generally, until this House has had an opportunity of debating the matter fully. It may well be that the best step would be, before even a recommendation is made on the Kent County Council Bill, that the general question should be settled. I think that that would be more satisfactory than to try and get the point settled on a particular Bill. The Kent County Council Bill would then have to be dealt with in accordance with the principle which this House will have

  243
  settled previously, rather than that it should be the other way—having a debate on the Kent County Council Bill which would also settle the principle. I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House can give us an assurance that it will be possible to have a debate at some reasonable time, with ample opportunities for everybody to say what they wish, which will deal with the whole question at issue and into which the Kent County Council Bill would fit.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am certainly not going to debate the merits of the Bill at this stage—that would be most undesirable and I believe it would be out of order, if there is any order under Standing Order No. 91. But obviously here is a matter of great importance. The merits of whether or not these powers should be given is, in itself, a pretty big question, but much more important, as I see it, is the constitutional question of whether in a Private Bill promoted by some undertaker there should be taken a power which, at least on the face of it, raises very broad general questions and would be much more appropriately the subject of a Public General Act of Parliament. At any rate, that is certainly arguable.
  It is very embarrassing. I do not know under what power we take a general debate on an abstract Motion which is all occasioned by and arises out of a specific Bill at the actual time when it is going through Committee. I do not see how we can debate in the full House a Bill which is in Committee; and as the noble Earl the Leader of the House has said, the next occasion on which we can discuss the broad merits and provisions of this measure is when it comes back to the House on Report.
  That is not very convenient, however, because in the meantime, the Committee upstairs will have taken cognisance of the Bill. I do not know what the Committee will be doing—whether perhaps 200 authorities are appearing before it. It may be taking all kinds of odd decisions which this House or another place may or may not like, and all its work may be abortive should this House decide that it has gone far beyond its powers and that a great deal of what it has debated—at great length and great expense to everybody concerned—is properly the subject of a Public Bill.
  244
  I believe the Lord Chairman is right to have reported this matter to your Lordships but I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House why it was not raised before your Lordships on Second Reading, because that seems to me to be the stage at which these grave issues should have been raised, before the Bill was sent to a Committee to debate the details. The House would then have been in a position either to throw out the Bill, which is an extreme case, or, as is often done, to give some direction to the Committee. I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the Lord Chairman of Committees: Is there a procedure by which a Bill of this kind, which raises these grave issues, can be brought before the House under Standing Order No. 91, or in some other way, on Second Reading, so that the House can have an opportunity of discussing the constitutional issues raised before the Bill goes to the Committee?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Earl, I believe that this is a new situation and one that has not really faced us before, when, by means of a Private Bill, very wide powers may be taken. I should like to consider first of all whether this matter should or could have been raised on Second Reading and then what should happen on future occasions. I feel that the Parties should consult together as to the line to be taken in future. I believe that the Lord Chairman of Committees has done quite rightly, for no irretrievable step has been taken yet. Again, I should have thought that, because this is new and we want to take the right constitutional steps, the best course would be to consider the form of Motion which might be put before the House at a comparatively early date; because it would seem preferable to deal with this matter through a Motion, if that is properly framed, rather than to wait until the Bill is reported. Perhaps we might have consultations through the usual channels and arrange the most appropriate machinery.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chairman of Committees whether he will do as I understand he says he intends—that is, to turn down at any rate a number of the clauses in this Kent County Council Bill—before this

  245
  House has had time to discuss the new principle which he has put before the House? After all, as the noble Lord has himself said, the Bill as it stands is based on precedent. I gather that there is no new invention in any of the clauses but only that one thing which again has happened frequently—that one authority is asking power for other authorities. So far as Kent is concerned, something vital may occur before the House has taken a decision which might be quite otherwise.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord opposite, if the normal processes of the Bill are held up in any way that will be only to the detriment of the Promoters, because time is an important factor and the Bill has yet to go to another place before the end of the Session. I suggest, therefore, that it would be in nobody's interest for the present proceedings to be adjourned in any way. I feel perfectly certain that the last people who would want that would be the Promoters. But I believe that, happily, there is a method by which the House can assert its own will in any way it pleases: that is, that it is possible to have this Bill recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House at a later stage. I am instructed and advised that that could be done, and I feel sure that it would be the best way of meeting the point made by the noble Lord, if that is desired.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that is not really satisfactory, because the noble Lord has already expressed a view—admittedly a balanced view. If this Bill is to be dealt with in accordance with the view that he has expressed, then it will be to the detriment of the Promoters of the Bill: we should be treating this Bill as if the principle which the noble Lord wants to enunciate had been accepted by the House. Surely it would be possible for the House to express its views about the principle before anything is done with this Bill on the basis of the principle that the noble Lord wants to accept. In other words, what the noble Lord is suggesting is, "I will do the damage and it may be possible that it can be put right on some other occasion." That is not very satisfactory.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I do not know what other alternative to suggest. With respect, if the noble Lord
  246
  thinks that there is an alternative, would he please make a suggestion?
  LORD SILKIN: I had thought that the noble Earl the Leader of the House had suggested that there should be talks through the usual channels, and I suggest that those discussions should embrace what should be done with this particular Bill and how it should be dealt with.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I appreciate the possibility of recommittal but that would seem to be holding things up for a long time. The Bill goes through Committee upstairs, which may take some time, and then comes here and we recommit it, I am not sure whether a recommittal (which is really a Committee stage of the Whole House at which we discuss Committee points) is the best way of dealing with a great point of principle which, in the case of a Public Bill, is discussed upon Second Reading. When a Private Bill comes up for Second Reading, it is the practice that a Motion can be put down giving the Committee a direction to pay particular attention to particular clauses, or to do this or that when considering the Bill.
  I entirely agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that there should be immediate consultations on how we should deal with this issue. But we want to achieve two things. We do not want to prejudice the Promoters, who may have quantities of useful provisions in this Bill; at the same time we certainly do not want to sacrifice the position of this House on a constitutional issue. Is there any way in which, if a Motion were put down and the opinion of the House taken on the question of principle, while the Bill is still in Committee, we could do what we could certainly do on Second Reading: that is, to give a direction to the Committee that they either do not deal with certain clauses or that they pay particular attention to certain clauses, as the case may be. Would that be in order?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that we cannot go on discussing this matter in full generally in the House. The only thing to do is to get the usual channels to agree on the best way to handle it. And, if necessary, with the leave of the House, I will make a statement to-morrow on the agreed way to handle the situation.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, while agreeing with what the

  247
  Leader of the House has said, may I put one point which I think is exercising the minds of many Members of your Lordships' House?—it is certainly exercising mine. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has told us certain views of his with regard to the Bill; but what follows from that? As I understand it, he is telling us that if the Committee now dealing with this Bill accept his point of view they will do certain things with regard to the Bill, and they will report in a certain way. The question is: What is it that the Committee, under the direction of the Lord Chairman, are proposing to do? Are they going to kill the Bill? Are they going to recommend hostility to the Bill, or what? Until we know that, which follows from the noble Lord's speech—until we know what they propose to do—I do not think we are in a position to say whether we approve or not.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this is a matter that has come quite suddenly upon us; it is quite unexpected, and I think that before we go further we must have consultation and decide how to deal with this novel situation. And that is what I propose to do at once.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask this question: Supposing this Bill, on the grounds urged upon us by the Lord Chairman, is rejected, do the Commons ever see the Bill, or is it finished with?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think it would have the same fate as any other Bill that is rejected here; but I must have notice of that question. All these questions we will go into this afternoon, at a later hour.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am not an expert at all, but I have a long experience of London self-government, and I remember the shocking record of this House in obstructing progressive proposals as regards the London area.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, the only possibility of the Bill being rejected by this House is now on Third Reading, and that will be on the Floor of this House.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, I know.

  THE TAY ROAD BRIDGE SCHEME
  3.24 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government on what dates, at what places, and under what conditions they are proposing to hold the census of traffic which the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided upon, to provide evidence of the need for a road bridge across the Firth of Tay.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): At a meeting on May 20, 1957, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland agreed that the technical, financial, and economic implications of the Tay Bridge Scheme should be examined. Accordingly, Dundee Corporation and Fife County Council, at his suggestion, propose to hold an origin and destination survey of traffic for a week during August at the Tay ferry and at suitable points on the Perth—Dundee and the Perth—Forfar—Stonehaven roads. The detailed arrangements have not yet been settled, but the object is to obtain information about the long-distance traffic which might use a road bridge at Dundee.
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that a census of the number of vehicles trying to use the present obsolete and slow methods of transit is a very poor guide to the number of vehicles that might use a modern bridge? In view of all the preparatory work which has been done locally on the subject, can my noble friend say what is the earliest date on which a Provisional Order Bill to enable the bridge to be constructed would receive facilities?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, no; I could not give the noble Earl any definite date as to when a Provisional Order might be promoted. I understand that such a Provisional Order is in the meantime under consideration by the town council of Dundee, but I do not know when it will come before this House or before Parliament. As to the other point, there are in existence at the present

  249
  moment censuses of the number of vehicles using these roads, but that is not the point we are trying to get at. What we are trying to get at is the number of long-distance vehicles that would be likely to use this bridge, and the only way in which one can get at that is by taking the census to which I have referred.

  RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS OVER THE UNITED KINGDOM
  3.27 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the date on which the latest information on the level of radioactivity over the United Kingdom was given to them by the Medical Research Council and what that level was.]
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Medical Research Council, together with the Agricultural Research Council, is, through a joint Committee, responsible for collecting information about the levels of radiostrontium in biological materials in the United Kingdom. Reports on radiostrontium in soil, grass, milk and bone in the United Kingdom have been laid in the Library of the House, and a further one will, I hope, become available about the middle of the year. Measurements of radioactivity in the upper atmosphere are made by the Atomic Energy Authority. There was a significant rise in short-term radioactivity in the upper atmosphere late in March, but this activity was due to short-lived products of nuclear explosions which do not constitute a health hazard.
  LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his Answer to my Question. I will consider: I think it supplies me with the information I require.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope so.

  CORPORATION OF THE SONS OF THE CLERGY CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  READING ALMSHOUSE AND MUNICIPAL CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  ROYAL INSTITUTION OF GREAT BRITAIN CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  ST. JAMES'S DWELLINGS CHARITY SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
  3.29 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, this is a small Bill but an important one, which, as many of your Lordships will be aware, has been the subject of considerable debate in another place. As a result it was substantially amended and, among other improvements, has, I am assured, been made easier to understand. I am afraid that it is still a little complicated, but this is largely unavoidable in a Bill which has to amend other Acts of Parliament.
  The main provisions of the Bill were foreshadowed in the White Paper on Slaughterhouses published in May, 1956. The Government have three chief aims in legislating about slaughterhouse conditions. First, we want to ensure that stock are slaughtered humanely. Secondly, we want to see that the highest standards of hygiene are maintained in slaughtering and the processes that follow it. Thirdly, we want to ensure that there are satisfactory conditions for slaughterhouse workers. The problem the Government had to face was how to secure satisfactory slaughterhouses while at the same time ensuring adequate facilities, both local and national, for the needs of the meat trade.

  251
  Previously these aims had been thought to be attainable only by strictly limiting the number of slaughterhouses to some 400 or 500 in England and Wales, compared with the 12,000 in existence before the war, and placing them according to a centrally prepared national plan. This may have seemed right while the Ministry of Food still had central control of the marketing and slaughtering of home-produced livestock, but after decontrol in June, 1954, developments occurred in the meat trade which called for a fresh and more flexible approach to the problem. For instance, organisations of producers like the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and other big central organisations of meat traders began to emerge. These operated over wide areas of the country, and they needed slaughterhouses under their own management and control and situated in the districts best suited to their class of trade.
  After consulting all the various interests, we came to the conclusion that the best way to achieve the basic aims of slaughterhouse policy would be to lay down strict standards for slaughterhouses and to ensure that these standards were reached as quickly as possible, but without dictating just where the improved slaughterhouses had to be or laying down arbitrary limits to the number. With this in view, the Bill has three main features. First, it provides for new and strict minimum standards for the construction and equipment of slaughterhouses—a matter dealt with in the construction regulations, which have already been published in draft. New slaughterhouses will have to conform to these standards from the outset. Existing premises will have to be brought up to the new standards as soon as this can be done, without reducing the available facilities in any area below the minimum required.
  Secondly, the existing system, under which local authorities are responsible for licensing private slaughterhouses and for providing public slaughtering facilities, where necessary, will be preserved, but with a few additional safeguards for the trade. Thirdly, the aim of modernisation and improvement of slaughterhouses will be achieved in two stages. The first will consist of a period of from about one to two years, during which, broadly speaking, traders will be free to establish slaughterhouses where they like, so long
  252
  as they comply with normal town planning requirements and conform to the new standards. After that a measure of control over the granting of licences will be introduced.
  I will now run briefly through the main clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 amends the present law on the licensing of slaughterhouses. In the first place, to allow the initial period of freedom, it removes certain powers which enable restrictions to be placed on the granting of licences. Local authorities will no longer be able to refuse licences just because they think there are adequate existing slaughtering facilities in their districts; nor will it be necessary during the period of freedom to get the Minister's consent to the licensing of a new slaughterhouse. On the other hand, the clause obliges local authorities to refuse licences if slaughterhouses fail to conform to the standards of structure and equipment designed to promote hygienic handling of carcases and meat. At present their power to do this is permissive.
  Clause 2 deals with the licensing of slaughterhouses where this is restricted because there is a public slaughterhouse. Although, as I have just said, we propose to repeal the power of local authorities to refuse new licences where there are adequate private facilities, we do not intend to do this where a public slaughterhouse has been provided. This is because we recognise that local authorities have an ultimate responsibility to provide public slaughtering facilities if other facilities are unsatisfactory or inadequate. Clearly we could not ask them to do this, if we were going to expose them to the risk that the public slaughterhouse might be made uneconomic through unrestricted building of private slaughterhouses in the district. However, there will now be a right of appeal to the Minister against the refusal of an application for a licence.
  Under Clause 3, every local authority will be required to review the slaughterhouse facilities in its district and make a report to the Minister. The main purpose of this will be to provide the Minister with information to enable him to decide when the new slaughterhouse standards can be applied to existing slaughterhouses in the district. These reports will also affect the length of the period of freedom, since the date of submission by a local authority will fix the

  253
  end of the period for that particular district. To make sure that the period is neither too short nor too long, the clause fixes the earliest and latest dates by which the reports must be sent in. Clause 4 provides that once a report has been submitted any new licence applied for thereafter will need the Minister's approval. This reintroduces some measure of control over the granting of licences.
  Clause 5 deals with the controversial subject of the licensing of slaughterhouses some part of which is used as a dwelling. Its effect will be to stop any new slaughterhouses being used if the slaughterhall—the place where animals are killed or carcases processed—is connected to a dwelling. This will also apply to any existing slaughterhouse where the use of a part of the slaughter-hall as a dwelling has been discontinued for an appreciable time. I know that some will object that this does not go far enough and that all slaughterhouses connected to dwellings should be abolished. This might, however, create unjustifiable difficulty and hardship in certain circumstances, particularly in rural areas, and we believe that the present proposals, coupled with the existing powers of planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts, should be enough to enable the really objectionable places of this sort to be eliminated.
  Clause 6 deals with delays in preparing premises for use as slaughterhouses where they are covered by the freedom period, and enables local authorities to refuse licences where the delay is unreasonable. In Clause 7 we deal with the measures to safeguard the safety, health and welfare of the workers. This is done by extending the definition of a "factory" in the Factories Act, 1937, so as to make it clear beyond doubt that all slaughterhouses and knackers' yards are covered by the provisions of the Factories Act.
  Clause 8 and the Second Schedule make changes in the Slaughter of Animals Acts, the most important of which will allow the use of anæsthetisation by carbon-dioxide instead of mechanical methods of stunning to render animals unconscious before they are killed. This is a modern method which is already used abroad for pigs and is one which, after consulting the bodies concerned with
  254
  animal welfare, we think should be allowed for pigs here so long as suitable safeguards are prescribed. Other changes in the Acts are made to facilitate their consolidation.
  The most important feature of Clause 9 is that it will allow officers of the Ministry to enter slaughterhouses in order to see that hygiene regulations are enforced. As my right honourable friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer explained when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the other place, we do not intend to duplicate the work of officials of the local authorities. We do believe, however, that slaughterhouse hygiene is such an important subject that the Ministry ought to be able to keep in touch with the work of local authorities in this field, and we were reinforced in this view by the strong recommendations of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. We feel that local authorities should be helped, rather than hindered, by the provision.
  The remaining clauses deal with comparatively minor matters which can be better considered in Committee, but perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships that, since there is to be a separate Slaughterhouses Bill for Scotland, the present Bill deals only with England and Wales, except that Clause 15 applies to Scotland the provisions in Clause 7 relating to the safety, health and welfare of workers.
  That, my Lords, is our Bill. Let me admit that there are clearly some people with doubts about it: the debates in another place have shown that all too clearly. Some maintain that it will lead to more, rather than fewer, slaughterhouses than the 4,400 we have in England and Wales at the present time. That is not our view. We believe that the Bill will achieve the primary aim of securing better and more hygienic slaughterhouses, and that we shall get rid of the old, unsatisfactory premises, without the need for arbitrary direction from the centre. We think this is a much better way and more likely to lead to satisfactory results. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
  3.44 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has told us that this is a small but important Bill, and I agree with him. I have been interested in this subject for a matter of twenty years or so, and during that time the situation has become increasingly urgent. Some of your Lordships may not be aware of what happened just after the war, when the Balfour Committee said:
  "We were shocked to learn that contracts for the supply of meat for the United States Forces in Europe could not be arranged from this country direct because our slaughterhouses fall short of the standards demanded by the American Veterinary Corps."
  As a result, livestock was sent to the slaughterhouses which reached the proper standards in Rotterdam and The Hague. I am informed, too, that commerce in livestock which your Lordships' House has from time to time discussed is largely due to the same fact: that Continentals will not accept meat if it has been slaughtered in this country, since our standards are too low. I think it important that your Lordships should be seized of the urgency of this problem, and you will then be in a position to judge to what extent and how quickly—and I think speed is the essence of the matter—this Bill is likely to improve those conditions.
  The noble Earl has said—and no one will disagree with him—that we should all, wherever we sit in this House, have the same objects in mind when discussing the question of slaughterhouses: humane conditions and methods, good conditions of work, hygiene and, finally, efficiency and economy. But none of these things, I suggest, can be attained without what has come to be called (it has now become something of a catch-phrase) moderate concentration. No doubt we should differ one from the other as to what is meant by moderate concentration, but I suggest that what it means basically is the construction of large slaughterhouses to deal with probably the vast bulk of our supplies of meat and smaller slaughterhouses in particular places in which there is special need for them. I think that that would be a fair definition. The policy of moderate concentration has been accepted by both the main Parties, and, so far as I know, by all three Parties.
  In that connection, I should like to read the terms of reference (I think it is important that we should all be aware
  256
  of this) of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses which was set up in 1953. The terms of reference were:
  "To prepare a plan recommending in what localities, subject to a policy of moderate concentration, slaughterhouses (other than in bacon factories) should be sited for the slaughter in England and Wales of cattle, sheep and pigs; to recommend an order of priority for new works and major reconstructions; to make recommendations on the general principles of siting and the facilities that should be provided at these slaughterhouses; and to report on the changes that may be necessary in existing legislation to secure the central regulation of siting and design of slaughterhouses".
  That, I suggest, is a direction which might have been given by a Minister from either side of this House.
  The Inter-Departmental Committee reported, and in connection with their Report it is interesting to read the White Paper which was issued in 1956, a year after the Committee reported. I would here say (I think the same thing was said in another place) how much all who are interested in this Bill appreciate the draft regulations which have been put out by the Ministry. They have enabled us to take a far more informed and, I think, intelligent view of the likely working of this Bill than we could have taken if they had not been made available. I think it is worth while for any of your Lordships who are interested to compare the terms of the White Paper with Appendix II of the Report. One gets the feeling, inevitably I think, which is strengthened by the draft regulations, that the Government, without saying so, have had something approaching a change of mind. The thing is slight, but there is far less accent on the basic principle of concentration which I suggest is essential if we are going to attain the other four main objects of slaughterhouse policy.
  I suggest to your Lordships that without concentration it is impossible to obtain satisfactorily the humane conditions, the good conditions of work, the hygiene or the efficiency of slaughterhouses. Possibly it is easier, in the circumstances envisaged by this Bill, to obtain the humane treatment than to obtain good conditions of work. Incidentally, I do not begrudge the noble Earl the credit which he took to himself for the clause dealing with conditions of work, but of course he is aware, as are all your Lordships, that the Bill was overtaken by a recent decision, and therefore

  257
  this is what I believe is technically called declaratory. However, we welcome it.
  In connection with humane conditions, may I venture to put a question to the noble Earl? This is a matter which was discussed in another place, and reading the Reports of the debate I found myself in something of a quandary. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain the matter to me. It was there suggested that new instruments for use in slaughterhouses might receive approval from the Ministry. Indeed, an Amendment to this effect was moved, and the Minister in reply rejected the Amendment on what seemed to me the rather curious ground that this might establish monopolies. I have had contact with manufacturers of machines or instruments of this kind, and their opinion appears to be quite contrary—that they would consider it a great convenience if they could submit any new instrument which had been invented to the Ministry, and receive the Ministry's approval. It would seem to me that those who run the slaughterhouses would also be in a better position if, when they were ordering equipment, they knew that that equipment had already been approved. I cannot sea that any monopoly would be in the least likely to be set up in that way. Surely, any other manufacturer would be perfectly free to produce other instruments and submit them for approval. I raise this point because if the Minister can answer it now, it may save us time on the Committee stage. I may add, incidentally, that the Weinberg pen is such a contrivance, and it did, in fact, receive approval.
  In connection with the operation of the Factories Acts in slaughterhouses, may I ask the noble Earl whether he or the Ministry have given any more consideration to a point which was raised in another place—and which was not, I believe, definitely settled before this Bill left that place—which had to do with the definition of slaughtering. It is a small, but not unimportant, point. Finally in this connection, may I say that we regret that the power for regulation is not wider. I fully appreciate that we shall be told, if we criticise the Factories Acts, that this Bill is no place in which to amend them. But the fact remains that the Factories Acts will be insufficient or inadequate to cover conditions in slaughterhouses. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that it
  258
  would be desirable to give wider scope, even before any basic change is made in the Factories Acts. I think I am right in saying that nowadays, when passing enabling legislation under which other orders can be made, it is usual to make the field very wide and to allow the small definite points to be brought up in the orders and discussed in Parliament in that way; whereas, of course, the Factories Acts date from an earlier period and go into what nowadays would be considered rather old-fashioned detail.
  I come to the third of the desiderata of which we have both spoken: that is, hygiene. It is really on this ground that I feel the deepest disquiet. I cannot conceive that it will be possible adequately to inspect slaughterhouses if they exist in even the present numbers. I am aware that there are something like 4.500 slaughterhouses in this country, as compared with 12,000 before the war, but I do not believe that even that number, with the present staff of inspectors—and Her Majesty's Government will be aware how short we are of inspectors—can possibly be satisfactorily, adequately and constantly inspected. Not only will it not be possible, I believe, properly to inspect the actual factories; far more difficult will be the inspection of meat. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a point on which the Government should have second thoughts. The Minister in another place admitted that to the best of his belief 20 per cent. of the meat sold in this country had not been inspected. I have heard that figure put as high as 50 per cent. I think it is quite impossible to expect that the meat coming out of these thousands of small slaughterhouses can possibly be adequately inspected.
  In this connection, I should like, if I may, to quote the remarks made in 1951 by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Inspection, at a time when I think there were in all in this country something like 400 slaughterhouses, and not 4,000. The Committee reported:
  "The present deficiencies are often due to slaughterhouses being too small, badly constructed and inadequately equipped. In such circumstances it is impossible to secure the observance of reasonable standards of hygiene."
  I know the noble Earl will say: "This is what all our regulations are aimed at—to get those standards of hygiene." But I do not believe it will be possible to do that with this very large number of small

  259
  slaughterhouses. I heard, of course, what the noble Earl said about dwelling houses, and this indeed increases my disquiet, because these are the most undesirable slaughterhouses of all. These are places in which in many cases slaughtering is actually done in the basement of houses. I should have thought that it would have been possible, without decreasing seriously or in any important way our supplies of meat, to lay down immediately that slaughterhouses should not be either attached to or actually in dwelling houses. I must confess that it depressed me to hear what the noble Earl had to say on that subject.
  Finally, I come to the point of efficiency and economy. Here I think there can be no question at all that both efficiency and economy and, as I have also already suggested, hygiene, good conditions of work and humane conditions, can be best obtained in the larger slaughterhouses. It is economical to do your slaughtering in large slaughterhouses, because it is only in them that you can conserve and get the benefit of the by-products, the glandular materials and so on, which are obtainable and which in the smaller slaughterhouses are absolutely lost. It is essential for these materials. Which are extremely perishable, that the place in which they are to be treated should be adjacent to the slaughterhouse; and it is only in the larger slaughterhouses that it is possible to have these facilities at hand and also to have the necessary conveniences for separating and profiting from these materials.
  Again, the slaughtering in large slaughterhouses costs very much less. The cost per cattle unit in a slaughterhouse catering for a population of 60,000 would be 33⅓ per cent. more than in a slaughterhouse of a size to supply half a million persons. These figures I take from the Inter-Departmental Committee's own Report; I have merely changed the figures, which are probably no longer valid, into percentages. I think the difference is very striking. In addition, I should like to quote from the Annual Report of the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, published after the Inter-Departmental Committee had reported. The Corporation say this:
  " Although improvements are envisaged by the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, we are of the opinion that only by means of a new construction programme,
  260
  planned and executed by experts on the scale we have in mind, can slaughtering practice in this country attain the desired standard of efficiency, economy of operation and hygiene."
  Her Majesty's Government presumably hope that the less desirable slaughterhouses will, by the conditions which they are laying down, be put out of operation. I hope that may be so. They presumably also hope—if they still believe in moderate concentration; I am not quite sure about that, though they have not publicly denied it—that some, at any rate, of the larger slaughterhouses mentioned in the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report as being the most modern development of slaughtering will come into existence. I wish I could share their optimism. I am at a loss, if indeed this is their policy, to understand the provisions which they are proposing under this Bill.
  The noble Earl has said that there is to be a period of from one to two years when there will be no impediment put in the way of licensing new slaughterhouses, although they will have to conform to the regulations. The noble Earl spoke as if two years were a maximum. My understanding of the statement made in another place was that the minimum under the Bill would be nine months, but that the Minister expected that the period would be actually considerably longer than that—probably at least one to two years. But he did not, if I have understood correctly, say that two years would be the maximum. We may therefore anticipate, I am afraid, that the period may be. in certain areas, longer than two years. But in any case I do not understand why, when one is trying to co-ordinate the slaughterhouses of this country, one should have a free-for-all for two years. It seems to me quite incomprehensible, unless what the Government really want is a large number of small slaughterhouses all over the country and no new and truly efficient slaughterhouses. Thereafter we are to have the local authorities' reports to the Minister on conditions in their areas; after which, as the noble Earl has said, they will be granted licences only when special need can be shown to exist in the neighbourhood.
  In another place the Labour Party on Third Reading voted against this Bill. We do not intend to divide the House on Second Reading, but do not let the Government suppose for one single

  261
  minute that our restraint in this matter is any measure of approbation of this Bill. We believe that not only is it likely to prove a defective Bill, a Bill of small utility, if any, but that it may even prove a bad Bill, because during the free-for-all period many slaughterhouses may well be opened— indeed, Her Majesty's Government seem to expect this—and with the opening of any single one of those the problem of finally dealing in an intelligent and intelligible way with the slaughtering policy of this country becomes more and more difficult, if not impossible.
  4.6 p.m.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords. I am sure we all greatly appreciate the sincerity and deep knowledge from which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, speaks on this subject, which is to many people, perhaps, a rather distasteful subject—one of those necessities of life which many of us wish did not have to be. But for one, do not share the noble Lord's pessimism about this Bill. I believe that it constitutes a real and appreciable advance towards the good slaughterhouse policy which is the common aim, and which, as the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill explained, is set out clearly and fully in the White Paper issued in 1956. It has set out clearly what we ought to aim at and what I think it is common ground we are all aiming at. In the first few lines it is set out that policy must be not only to ensure adequate slaughtering facilities, but also to secure the slaughtering of stock in humane conditions, to maintain the highest standards of hygiene, and to have regard to the interests of traders and slaughterhouse workers. I am sure there is none of us in this House who is not wholly agreed that these are the aims. They are common aims, but our trouble has been, over many years in dealing with this difficult subject, over our methods of approach.
  It has already been mentioned that in another place records were broken by the length of time and columns of the OFFICIAL RECORD that were—I would not say wasted, but expended, on this difficulty of the divergent approach. And though it would be dangerous to try to summarise or simplify such a complex and difficult subject, I believe that the real divergence arising between us
  262
  here is whether we are to aim at a detailed central planning. which would have the effect of having a very few—perhaps only a few hundreds—publiclyowned abattoirs, or whether, on the other hand, the policy should be to have strict standards laid down by legislation, which would inevitably lead, I think, to a few more slaughterhouses—perhaps a few thousand—partly public and partly private, and to leave our local authorities and the private industry concerned with this work to work out the details of the size, the type, the number and the location of these slaughterhouses within this rigid framework of strict standards and regulations. My Lords, I think the Government have wisely adopted the latter approach to these common aims, and that is the basis of the legislation in this Bill.
  In the last two decades conditions have, I think, been quite abnormal. We must all admit that immediately before the war, when there were these 12,000 slaughterhouses about which we hear so much, agriculture was in a most depressed condition, a quite abnormal condition as we should now all agree, so that we cannot really base anything on that. During the war, when there were only 400 public slaughterhouses in operation, the conditions were again obviously quite abnormal: one had rationing of meat, and distribution was no longer in private hands. I am quite sure that it is the fact that these two previous periods have been so abnormal that has led us into a good deal of our difficulties. It was out of the two abnormal periods, neither one of which we want to return to, that this curious phrase to which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon has referred, "moderate concentration", came to be born. I think I am correct in saying (and I seem to recall that the Minister confirmed it during the debates in another place) that the Government still believe in moderate concentration. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply will just reaffirm that.
  The question with a phrase like that is, what does it mean? What is "moderate concentration"? If I may take a rather homely example, a glass of whisky and soda water to some people might be considered to be immoderate concentration. To a teetotaler it would

  263
  be wholly intoxicating and quite wrong; whereas to a really heavy drinker, the like of which I am sure there is none in your Lordships' House, it would be quite, shall I say, ineffective. I believe that this Bill gives no comfort either to the teetotaler or to the really heavy drinker. We are not going to find here an absolute concentration of slaughterhouses with this few number of publicly owned abattoirs; nor are we going to have this tremendous dispersal which will lead back to the 12,000 figure of before the war.
  If I may refer briefly to one or two of the specific matters in this Bill, I should like to mention for a moment Clause 2, because it is, I think, the most important of all: it is the general clause about licensing. I think that, in the changed circumstances which now obtain, the Government have taken a wise decision in rejecting the advice of the Inter-Departmental Committee which reported in 1955. The Inter-Departmental Committee recommended the Government not to allow local authorities absolutely to reject new slaughterhouses. In my view, however, the Government have done wisely in retaining the power for local authorities to restrict private slaughtering where they have provided a public slaughterhouse. It might have thrown an unfair burden on the ratepayers to have public slaughterhouses rendered uneconomic by unrestricted competition. But here we have a good escape clause, because there are new developments going on all the time, and in such a restricted area, as I believe it is called (it is a little complex), or an area where restrictions are in force, if somebody wanting to put up a new and modern slaughterhouse, perhaps with the idea of using new methods is refused permission, he has a right of appeal to the Minister; so there is not a blank refusal. That incorporates a most important point in this Bill.
  The other specific point that I should like to refer to is in Clause 3, and concerns this matter of reports. I think that is an extremely important matter. It may mean, in the first place, that some extra work will be put on to local authorities, but I believe they will accept it gladly, for it will clearly be of the most extreme advantage that there should be these reports and that the facts as to the
  264
  facilities in a district should be known before these regulations come into force and have to be imposed. The other clause which is of great importance, although it may be called declaratory, is surely Clause 7, under which, at last, and for the first time, the workers in this industry have the full protection of the Factories Acts.
  Therefore, my Lords, I believe that this Bill represents a valuable and constructive advance on the three fronts of good slaughterhouse policy that we all want. Different people will differ in regard to the order of priority. For myself, I would put them in this order. I would say that the human being should come first. Now, for the first time, there will be national standards for the strict control of slaughterhouses and the equipment that is used in them, designed to ensure proper hygiene for the health of the people and in regard to the food that we eat. The second priority I would give is to the worker in this, it must be said, somewhat unpleasant industry of slaughterhouse work. Now, for the first time, should this Bill become law, such a worker will have the full protection of the Factories Acts. I think that that is overdue. Thirdly in my order of priorities would come the animal that is to be slaughtered. This Bill constitutes an advance in humane methods of slaughter, and I am sure that your Lordships will welcome it in the form in which it now comes to this House.
  4.20 p.m.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, in reading the text of this Bill and in listening to the speeches this afternoon I have been greatly struck by the fact that, except for the last sentence of the noble Earl who spoke last, the interests of the animals have not been mentioned at all. We have been given references to White Papers up to and including 1956, but there has been no mention of Command Paper 243 of August, 1957. That Paper sets out to give protection against fear and pain to animals which are to be slaughtered for our needs. I want to ask the noble Earl to tell us, in replying, how the provisions of this Command Paper are to be incorporated in the Bill and how they may be debated; because it does not follow that everybody will agree without debate to what is contained in that Paper. Are these provisions to be included in the Act

  265
  after it has been passed, without any discusion or debate—or how are they to be included?
  In case there should be no further opportunity to debate these provisions except on the Committee stage, I should like to bring to notice three paragraphs in this Command Paper which I believe are capable of improvement. The first is paragraph 2:
  "In these regulations a stunning pen ' means a pen or compartment which is suitable for confining a bull, ox, bullock, cow, heifer or steer while it is being stunned and which is constructed so as to confine without discomfort only one such animal at a time and so to prevent any substantial movement by the animal forwards backwards, or sideways."
  In that connection, there are two points that I should like to make. First, there should be a provision that the sides of the pen should be sufficiently high to prevent the animal from seeing out of it or being seen while inside. That is in conformity with the last paragraph of the Paper which reads:
  "The existing regulations forbidding the slaughtering of an animal in sight of other animals awaiting slaughter will be applied to all slaughterhouses without exception. It already applies to all knackers' yards. The existing regulation requiring the provision at all slaughterhouses and knackers' yards where horses are slaughtered of a separate room or hay for that purpose will be applied to all such slaughterhouses and knackers' yards without exception."
  That is one point.
  Another point is that the word "mechanical" ought to be inserted in the description of a stunning pen, otherwise it would be possible for a small slaughterhouse to knock up any kind of contraption of boarding and to say that it was a stunning pen. An adequate stunning pen is a rather complicated affair, because as soon as the animal has been stunned the sides have to open and the floor has to tip up so that the animal is immediately slid out on to the floor. I believe therefore that it would be a great advantage if the word "mechanical" were inserted in that place.
  The other point I should like to make on the Paper is in connection with the delay which is to be allowed before these conditions are enforceable. It is stated:
  "The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 5 inclusive of this regulation shall not apply in relation to any existing slaughterhouse where paragraph 1 of this regulation came into operation
  266
  in relation to that slaughterhouse after the … day of …"
  A footnote says:
  "The date to be inserted here will be four years later than the date in the first sentence of Regulation 1."
  Personally, I consider four years is too long and that it ought to be possible for any slaughterhouse, even the smallest one, to be provided with a proper mechanical slaughtering pen within two years. I understand that although the pens used by the big slaughterhouses are very expensive, costing perhaps £300 or £400, an adequate slaughtering pen can be constructed for about £150.
  The next point I want to raise is in connection with the electrical stunning of animals, particularly of sheep. A letter issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to county councils, urban district councils and others, casts considerable doubt on the efficiency of electrical stunning in all cases, and recommends that particular care should be taken especially in the case of sheep, where wool acts to some extent as a nonconductor. Among other things, the letter recommends that the wool should be clipped at both sides of a sheep's head before the electrical stunning tongs are applied.
  We have heard something about the shortage of inspectors in slaughterhouses, and I maintain that a provision of this kind would be impossible to obtain where large numbers of sheep were being stunned. The letter also indicates that the voltage should be not less than 75 volts—and that would be a provision very difficult to enforce. I know that a great deal of discussion and experiment is going on about the efficiency of electrical stunning and, for that reason, I hope that the regulations as finally agreed and passed into law may take very considerable notice of this point.
  I have here a letter from the Liverpool abattoir, which, I believe, is the biggest slaughterhouse in the country; at any rate, they slaughter about 250,000 sheep every year.
  It states that:
  "… the electric stunner is not entirely satisfactory, as the wool on the heads would appear to act as insulation and effective stunning is not 100 per cent. I have discussed this at great length with the engineer and eventually decided to use captive bolt pistols, if and when the line was used."

  267
  The reference to the "line" concerns a system of progressive slaughter of animals, in the same sort of way as motor cars are assembled—but this is for disassembling. The letter goes on to say:
  "To use the alternative method we usually need to purchase two more pistols and cartridges, at 90s. per thousand, which will amount to a considerable sum annually."
  The writer states that the electric stunner is provided and installed by local authorities, but that the captive bolt pistols and cartridges are not provided. It is quite true that the extra cost per carcase is very trivial, only a fraction over a penny; nevertheless, there it is. There is a tendency to cause a slaughterman to prefer to use the electric stunning to the captive bolt pistol. Another argument in favour of the captive bolt pistol is that it is possible for an inspector to see afterwards what has happened to the sheep, from the hole in the skull; whereas it is not possible at a later stage to form any opinion as to whether the electric stunning was effective or not.
  The last point I want to raise is in connection with the possibility of permitting independent inspectors to have access to slaughterhouses. I remember raising this point some years ago just after the war, and I was told that the position was quite all right because the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had the power of entry to slaughterhouses, and it was considered that that was quite sufficient and it was not desired to extend that permission to a number of other, small societies. As a matter of fact, so far as I know there is only one other society which takes much interest in the details of the slaughter of animals. But I should like to ask the noble Earl to tell us in his reply whether that independent inspection can be made in the future. It is admitted on all hands that the inspection facilities are inadequate; that the inspection staff are inadequate; that they are mainly concerned with the hygiene of the slaughterhouse, with the quality of the meat and so on, and that there is not much provision to look after the sufferings of the animals. But, as I say, my main question this afternoon is this: How are the provisions of this Command Paper to be included in the Bill, and what opportunity shall we have of debating them?
  4.34 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes. I want to ask the noble Earl one question. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has rather criticised this term, "moderate concentration" for its somewhat vague meaning; and it seems to me that this Bill does very little to encourage the building of large modern abattoirs, which is surely what must be the ultimate aim. I had the opportunity of inspecting the Inglis abattoirs in Melbourne. The people there are very proud of them; they encourage visitors, and make what I think is a pretty just claim that absolutely no part of the animal is wasted. Parts of these abattoirs are almost like modern laboratories. In them are made the surgical gut and many other by-products that come from the animal.
  I am told that if we in this country possessed abattoirs of this kind the saving in waste would be enormous and, in fact, would pay many times for the construction of these large, modern meat factories, which is what they really are; and also that the saving would pay for a great deal of the meat which we at present import. Could the Minister tell us what plans there are for building really modern meat factories, and how many there will be? Are there any abattoirs in this country at the present time to compare with these wonderful places that one sees in the Commonwealth and, of course, in the United States? I am told by people in the meat world that we are almost behind the world in this sort of thing, as is probably instanced by the fact that during the war, as we were told earlier this afternoon by Lord Faringdon, the Americans would not allow their meat slaughtered here to be served to the United States Forces. It seems to me that very little is being done to encourage these really modern buildings, and perhaps the Minister could say something about this aspect.
  4.37 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon, and I will endeavour to deal with at least some of the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, raised a point which my noble friend Lord Gifford has just touched on again When he quoted from the Balfour

  269
  Report that the United States Forces would not have their animals slaughtered here. On the face of it that sounds very bad; but when one looks at the matter a little more closely the position, frankly, is not so serious as he would have your Lordships believe. There are certain conditions which our friends in the United States apply to all their slaughtering which just are not followed in this country, in any slaughterhouse: they are practices that we have not adopted. Possibly the most obvious one is their strict standard that all carcases must be hosed down with steam. Even in the most modern abattoirs in this country we do not do that, because it is one of those practices that we have felt from all sides was unnecessary or undesirable. They like it done. Frankly, I myself—I am no expert on this—wonder whether it might not have some effect on the taste.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl knows how many other countries (because quite clearly it applies in the Low Countries) insist on the same procedure?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, that I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord. All I can tell him is that it is one of those things we have never done here and that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever asked for it. The noble Lord also raised a point about manufacturers being willing to have various instruments—I presume by that he means actual killing instruments—approved.
  LORD FARINGDON: Not necessarily. The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, was talking about the stunning pen. I mean any fitments.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Frankly, we feel it unnecessary to have any further control over the various implements used. We have no reason at all to suspect that faulty stunning pens would be installed by an irresponsible firm. We know that that trade is in the hands of very reputable firms who have already had a great deal of experience. We have had no form of complaint at all about captive bolts, and we are rather reluctant to add further controls unless there is a good reason for doing so. We are always willing to give our advice.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting again, but the noble Earl is puzzling me. Surely the
  270
  Ministry is going to say whether they would approve certain instruments—for example, the electric stunner mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding. Surely that could not be used as an alternative to the bolt without the consent of the Minister. It must come under the control of the regulations.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I understood that the noble Lord was asking that we should have regulations whereby all these instruments would be approved.
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I did not suggest regulations. What I suggested was that a manufacturer should submit an implement or piece of equipment he was producing to the Ministry to be tested; and, having been tested, it would then go out to anybody who wanted to buy it as one which had been tested and approved by the Ministry. It is not a question of control, but merely of convenience to the manufacturer and the purchaser.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as said, we are willing and anxious to help and advise manufacturers on any new suggestions that come along; and that we are doing. The noble Lord also raised the question of the length of the freedom period. He is perfectly right in assuming that two years is not necessarily the maximum. If the Minister approves the earliest date for the submission of local authority reports, the maximum could not exceed two years, five months.
  My noble friend Lord Waldegrave welcomed the Bill and touched on the point, which my noble friend Lord Faringdon also mentioned, of moderate concentration. I think that perhaps my noble friend has slightly misunderstood the situation. I said in my opening remarks that:
  "This may have seemed right whilst the Ministry of Food still had a central control of marketing and slaughtering of home produced livestock, but after decontrol in June, 1954, developments occurred in the meat trade which called for a fresh and more flexible approach to the problem."
  And that is what we have, a moderate concentration—but not such a concentrated moderate concentration as my noble friend had in mind.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, asked me what chance there would be of discussing these regulations as presented

  271
  in the White Paper, Cmnd. 243, before they actually became regulations. Of course he will have an opportunity of praying against these regulations when they are laid, and I assure him that I will pay great attention to what he has said, though there are one or two points where I am afraid I cannot agree with him. I may have misunderstood him on the point which he raised about stunning pens, but I cannot see what difference it makes to the animal concerned, once it is dead, whether the stunning pen is operated mechanically or not. I understood that the noble Lord's main point was humanitarian.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, while it does not make any difference to the animal when it is dead, an inspector can get a good line on what is going on in a slaughterhouse when he sees the skulls of the animals that have been killed, if stunning is adopted in the slaughtering of every sheep that is killed.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was referring to the stunning pens. I cannot see what difference it makes to an animal, once it is dead, whether the pen is operated mechanically or not.
  LORD DOWDING: My Lords, a great point is made that the captive bolt pistol does not kill the animal: it stuns it. And though consciousness does not return, reflex action sets in after a surprisingly short time—sometimes after a matter of seconds—and when the animal is hoisted up to be bled after being stunned, if reflex action has set in the work of the slaughterman becomes much more difficult. As I understand it, that is the object of a mechanical stunning pen from the point of view of the slaughterman. The high sides, of course, are for a different purpose—to prevent animals from being killed in sight of one another. But I understand that the mechanical stunning pen is to enable the carcase of the animal to be hoisted up from the floor and hoisted up for bleeding with the minimum of delay.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that further explanation. I am still not quite convinced, but I will look into the point. The noble Lord also raised the question
  272
  of electrical stunning. I must admit that I listened with considerable interest to his remarks, which obviously proceeded from close study of the subject. I can assure the noble Lord that we will keep an eye on the use of electric stunners for sheep. We have sent this letter round to the local authorities and we shall continue to watch this with the greatest of care.
  The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon raised a point, which was also raised in another place, on lairages and the Factories Act. My right honourable friend did say in another place that it was the Government's intention that the lairages attached to slaughterhouses should come under the Factories Act, and that he would consider whether Clause 7, which I think is the one the noble Lord is worried about—
  LORD FARINGDON: No.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I apologise to the noble Lord. I thought when he was talking about slaughterings—
  LORD FARINGDON: In a sense, it is lairages. It is really the definition of the word.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Then I think we are on the same point, and in fact it relates to Clause 7. My right honourable friend said that he would consider whether Clause 7 did that, and that, if it did not, steps would be taken to ensure that lairages were covered before the Bill reached the Statute Book. We are considering this question, which has turned out to be a rather complicated one, and I can assure the House that, if the position is not clear, I will on the Committee stage introduce an Amendment to that clause to make it absolutely clear.
  The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, rather suggested that I had taken more unto myself than I should have done in saying what I did about the Factories Act and this Bill. I would remind him that, although it did arise, to a certain extent, out of a judicial decision, that decision in itself was not binding; there was still room for appeal to your Lordships' House, and it might at some time have been upset. Therefore, feeling that these workers should be under the Factories Act, we took the initiative and put them into the Bill.
  LORD FARINGDON: I am delighted to give the Government full credit.
  EARL, ST. ALDWYN: My noble friend Lord Gifford rather suggested that we should have abattoirs somewhat on the scale of those in Australia. Frankly, we have none on that scale, and I do not anticipate that there will be any, for this simple reason: that the position in Australia, and in America, is that there is a great quantity of animals coming to one central place to be slaughtered and then going out in one direction. Here it is more a question of supplying the local need with what it requires. There is no question, for instance, of all the meat in the North of England being collected and sent to London. The vast majority of it is consumed locally. In the long run, I think it is more economical from everybody's point of view to have the smaller units distributed more in relation to the production and consumption of the meat.
  LORD GIFFORD: But surely there is a vast waste of by-products by using the smaller abattoirs?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: In the very small abattoirs, obviously there is a loss; but in the more moderate-sized ones, I think we can make use of all the by-products.
  LORD FARINGDON: I am a little puzzled on this point. I should have thought that the London area and some of the larger conurbations would have been able to employ an abattoir, if not perhaps on the scale of that at Chicago, still on the scale I was talking about, to deal with, say, 500,000 inhabitants.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: From the point of view of consumption, the noble Lord is quite right. He talks about Chicago. But there is there a vast area which is producing, and the whole of the produce of that one area is going into one place and then out to Chicago and so on. Here there is no area for which it can be said that all the meat is going to London. It is because we have not the wide, open spaces, such as they have in Australia and America, that we are in a rather different position.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TIRBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
  4.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 1:
  Council on Tribunals
  1.—(1) There shall be a council, entitled the Council on Tribunals,—

  (a) to keep under review the constitution and working of the tribunals specified in the First Schedule to this Act (being the tribunals constituted under or for the purposes of the statutory provisions specified in that Schedule), and, from time to time, to report on their constitution and working;

  (b) to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred to the Council under this Act with respect to tribunals other than the ordinary courts of law, whether or not specified in the First Schedule to this Act, or any such tribunal, or with respect to administrative procedures involving an inquiry or hearing.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out all words after "tribunal", down to the end of the paragraph and to insert:
  " (c) to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred as aforesaid, or as the Council may determine to be of special importance, with respect to administrative procedures involving, or which may involve, the holding by or on behalf of a Minister of a statutory inquiry or any such procedure."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move the first Amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will appreciate that this Amendment is an endeavour to meet what appeared to be the general view of the House, and especially the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Swinton. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Council on Tribunals, on its own initiative, to consider and to report on any particular matter of special importance concerned with any administrative procedure involving, or which may involve, the holding of an inquiry or hearing in pursuance of a statutory provision.
  Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, directed our attention to this

  275
  matter by his Amendment on the Committee stage, under the existing Clause 1 the Council's initiative was confined to keeping under review the constitution and working of the tribunals listed in the First Schedule. As regards other tribunals and procedures involving an inquiry or hearing, the Council could consider and report only on such particular matters as might be referred to it by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State. That was a limitation which I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was anxious to clear away. I explained that the reasons why the Council was not given general supervision of inquiries were that the implications of doing so for a wide and undefined range of inquiries had not been examined, and that the Franks Committee itself recommended only that the Council should have "certain responsibilities" in relation to inquiries (the formulation of codes of procedure and the basis for the award of costs). Again, that limitation on the freedom of the Council to comment on inquiries drew criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and from many of those who spoke on his Amendment.
  Then, your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Swinton appeared to be speaking for the majority of the House when he suggested that the Council ought to have competence [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 57), col. 864]:
  " … if they thought there was some shocking matter of a procedural kind which had not been referred to them by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland, and without keeping everything under continuous review, to consider and report to him as a Council on that particular matter."
  I promised to consider that suggestion, and this is the result. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to withdraw his Amendment on my assurance.
  The Government's Amendment gives effect to that proposal and empowers the Council to report on any matter of special importance concerning a statutory inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will appreciate that the Franks Committee dealt only with those inquiries concerning land, and it was these with which the House was primarily concerned. The noble Lord's Amendment, however, extended to all kinds of inquiries, and the Government Amendment
  276
  has not been restricted to those concerning land. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, appreciates that I have tried to meet him in that way.
  It is necessary to define with some degree of precision the scope of the initiative now conferred on the Council, and the Amendment limits this to procedures involving, or which may involve, a statutory inquiry. The purpose of this limitation is to confine the Council's initiative to hearings of a quasi-judicial nature. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is necessary to exclude the ordinary processes of administration, for example, an interview with an official, on which it would be inappropriate for the Council to comment. The noble Lord may have noticed that "statutory provision" includes subordinate legislation, so there is no difficulty there. Also, the Amendment is drafted to cover cases in which the holding of an inquiry is discretionary. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that although he has not got everything he wants I have gone a great way to meet his Amendment, and I have tried to interpret, as fairly and as fully as I can, what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, put forward as a via media. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 17, leave out from (" tribunal") to end of line 19 and insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, before I make comment upon what the noble and learned Viscount has so kindly said, may I refer to something which he said in reply to the Amendment which I withdrew, and for which this is a substitute, on the Committee stage of the Bill? I refer to Column 861 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of April 22. The noble and learned Viscount said:
  " The only slant of Lord Lucas of Chilworth's speech with which I should quarrel is the impression that he gave of arrogating to himself primarily the desire to see that the position of the individual is improved."
  If I was inadvertently guilty of conveying that impression, not only to the noble and learned Viscount but to any of your Lordships, I am deeply distressed, because it would exhibit a piece of impertinence of which I never thought I should be guilty. If I did that—and, as I say, it was quite inadvertent—I would offer, not only to the noble and learned Viscount,

  277
  but to your Lordships, my humble apology. With all your Lordships I share a profound respect for the fairness of the Lord Chancellor and his invariable desire to protect the rights of the citizen and individual, and that is why I would thank him very much for the Amendment which he has put down.
  Frankly, I cannot quite see the difference between his Amendment and mine. His goes almost all the way. There is only one thing I would say, and it gives me particular pleasure to say it—I do not like the drafting. As one who has suffered for years from having that said of my poor efforts, it gives me great satisfaction to say that I do not like the Parliamentary draftsman's drafting of this Amendment. But again I expect I am wrong, so if I have two questions to ask perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me. I hesitate to say I do not like the grammar, because again I may be wrong. The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment reads in this way:
  " to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred as aforesaid "—
  that is, those already mentioned in the words of the previous paragraph. Then it goes on:
  " or as the Council may determine to be of special importance …"
  Would it not be clearer if the words were:
  " or other matters as the council may determine to be of special importance"?
  In my view it does not run smoothly to say:
  " to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred as aforesaid, or as the Council may determine to be of special importance …"
  I should have thought that what we really want is for the Council to have jurisdiction on other matters as the Council may determine to be of special importance. That is my first point.
  My next point is that the Amendment goes on—and I hope I am not displaying an unduly suspicious mind—
  " or as the Council may determine to be of special importance, with respect to administrative procedures involving, or which may involve, the holding by or on behalf of a Minister of a statutory inquiry …"
  What about the procedures following an inquiry that has been involved? If the noble and learned Viscount can follow me, I have in my mind that he is anxious about administrative procedures which
  278
  may be carried out by the enactment of this Bill, by enactment of other legislation, or by other administrative procedure. I am anxious that the procedures that are put into force without enactment and done administratively shall also come before the Council. May I give the illustration of the circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—the one I have quoted before? Here is a procedure which has been put into force administratively. Would such a procedure come under this paragraph which the Lord Chancellor now proposes your Lordships should agree to insert in the Bill?
  One last point. The Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount says:
  " the holding by or on behalf of a Minister of a statutory inquiry. …"
  He omits the words, "or hearing". As the noble and learned Viscount knows, many of these things can be done by hearing privately, and need not he a statutory public inquiry. Is a hearing included? Will this tribunal have the right to make suggestions or bring to the Lord Chancellor's attention matters with which they do not agree in the procedure hearings; or am I to understand that "hearing" is included in the words "or any such procedure"? That is why I did not like the wording. The noble and learned Viscount may tell me that the wording is quite good; that it is grammatically correct. But would he then give me an assurance on the points I have just raised?
  This is the Report stage, and I shall not have an opportunity of speaking on this Amendment again, so may I thank him very much for the trouble to which he has gone. I think that this Amendment to the Bill, in the sense the Lord Chancellor has described it to your Lordships, will do a great deal to take away the objection which was voiced in your Lordships' House to the position of the Council on Tribunals.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor? He knows that I had to he at another meeting when he moved this Amendment, but as I was able to get here before the debate concluded I should like to join the noble Lord opposite in thanking him most sincerely for accepting this Amendment and drafting it in this form. If I may,

  279
  I would venture to congratulate him on the great trouble which he obviously took to produce so good a Bill as this on a very complicated subject, and for the constructive and conciliatory attitude he has adopted through the Committee stage and to-day in making it an even better Bill.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, one does try to understand Acts of Parliament. I have been looking at paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), and they seem to me to read, leaving out unnecessary words:
  "to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred to the Council … with respect to tribunals …"
  and, in the new paragraph (c):
  " to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred as aforesaid, or as the Council may determine to be of special importance …"
  I have been trying to make something of it. Should it not be "or which the Council may determine", if I have interpreted the rest of the paragraph correctly?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may come back to Lord Saltoun's point in one moment, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and my noble friend Lord Swinton for what they have said. It is a great pleasure when one can meet the opinion expressed in the House. I have sought so to do, and I am very grateful for what they have said. As regards Lord Lucas of Chilworth's first point, I should only like to say to him that of course I fully accept what he said, in the spirit in which he said it.
  With regard to the drafting and the grammar, of course I will look at it, in view of what both noble Lords have said. But it is important to note (and this I think deals with Lord Saltoun's point) that the first line of the Amendment is
  "to consider and report on such particular matters as may be referred as aforesaid".
  These are the particular matters which I, in regard to England and Wales, or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the case of Scotland, may refer. That is where we pick up the word "as" to which the noble Lord. Lord Saltoun, has drawn attention. Then we go on to say:
  280
  "or as importance Council may determine to be of special importance …"
  I do not want to lose the particular, but I want to give the Council the full power which I said. Perhaps I may have another look at the wording. I am always pleased to receive suggestions; I think that we have done it, but I will look at it again and I would not for a moment grudge the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth the riposte to-day, because, as he says, the Government has very often in the last few years made the same sort of point on Amendments of his, and riposte is always very proper.
  With regard to what I think was the most substantial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I am quite clear that the procedure is the whole process and there is no better way of involving an inquiry than to have it in the middle. I am quite satisfied that the noble Lord's point is met, and I do not think he need be in any fear as to that. The other point that he raised was about the extent of the hearing. I did say that I wanted to confine this—and I think this was the general view—to hearings of a quasi-judicial nature. What I do not want—I did mention this; I want to be quite frank about it—is that if a Minister sends a civil servant to see somebody that purely administrative procedure should be involved; and that is the line one has drawn. I think that would be an undue limit on administration. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, need worry about the substance of his point, and with regard to the expression of that substance I will willingly have another look at it. I can only once again thank noble Lords who have spoken for what they have said on this Amendment, and ask the House to agree to it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Reports of, and references to, Council and Scottish Committee]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
  " (4) Where, without any reference having been made to them, the Council report on a particular matter, then—

  (a) if the matter relates only to England and Wales, subsection (2) of this section shall apply as if the matter had been referred to the Council by the Lord Chancellor,

  (b) if the matter relates only to Scotland, the two foregoing subsections shall apply as if the matter had been referred to them by the Secretary of State."

  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 might with convenience be discussed together, because they are both consequential on the previous Amendment. They provide for any report made by the Council of its own motion on a particular matter relating to administrative procedures covered by Clause 1 (1) (c) to be made to me if it refers to England or Wales, or to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland if the matter concerns only Scotland. These Amendments bring the Council's procedure arising from the previous Amendment into line with the procedure laid clown in the Bill for its other duties. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 16, at end insert (" or with respect to any particular matter falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the foregoing section and relating only to Scotland.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Chairmen etc. of certain tribunals: appointment by Lord Chancellor or Lord President]:
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) Where under any statute the appropriate authority is enabled to make or confirm any order or make any determination which interferes with or takes away the legal rights enjoyed by any person prior to such order and before making or confirming such order is empowered to appoint an inspector or other person or persons to inquire or hear representations and report upon the matter the inspector or person or, if more than one are so appointed the chairman, shall be selected by the appropriate authority from a panel of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Amendment down again in precisely the same form as I moved it on the Committee stage because, after the concerted pleadings of myself, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that he would take the whole
  282
  matter back and would consider it. This is the essential point: should the inspectors who hold inquiries set up under administrative procedures be independent of the Departments, or should they remain, as they are to-day, the servants of the Departments? I am not going to weary your Lordships with the whole of the arguments again. You have heard them in this House upon many occasions. I do not alter my view. I think my view was held by all the speakers in your Lordships' House, with perhaps one exception, and I put the Amendment down to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether or not he will meet, either here or when this Bill goes to another place, the expressed desire of your Lordships in the same generous manner as he has in Clause 1. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am going to ask your Lordships indulgence to speak for a little longer on this Amendment in order to try to disembarrass your Lordships, because this is a most important subject and I promised the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and others who spoke that I would give further consideration to the matter. I should like to deploy the reasons which have prevented my acceding to the Amendment, so that they are on record for consideration, and if they do not appeal to noble Lords I am sure they will be good enough to come and tell me the troubles they feel.
  We remain convinced that the change to put the inspectors in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government under my control would be a mistake. It is important to remember the reasons that have been advanced in favour of such a change by the Franks Committee. It was to increase public confidence in the procedure by
  "emphasising impartiality at an important stage of the adjudication."
  I quote those words from paragraph 303 of the Report. The Franks Committee recognise that such a change might seem to sonic to be a change in name only, but said that it is the appearance that matters. The Government say that such a change is not necessary and that it

  283
  would give rise to great practical difficulties.
  In considering the first question, whether a change is necessary, I invite your Lordships to look at what the problem really is. The inspectorate has grown up inside the Department over many decades, and it has established its present high reputation for impartiality and integrity from within the Department. Nobody has ever suggested, and the Franks Committee did not suggest, that the inspectors of the Ministry are subject to any influence in the recommendations they make, and, in fact, they are not. They are never given—nor would they accept—any advice about the conclusion that they should come to in any particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, confirmed this when he said—I quote his words from the OFFICIAL REPORT of April 22, Vol. 208, col. 886:
  "I go further and express the belief that they are not even briefed."
  That also is true. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to have this in mind. This is true, but it will be no less true now that their reports and recommendations are being published for all to see.
  The impartiality at this stage of the adjudication needs no emphasis; it has never been in doubt. But what has been in doubt—I think this was what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had in mind—was what happens after the report is received. Publication of the inspector's recommendations, together with the giving of full reasons for the Minister's decision, whether in agreement with the recommendation of the inspector or otherwise, will, we believe, resolve any doubt. I repeat what I said on the previous occasion, that the Franks Committee did not suggest that a change was necessary. All they suggested was that it would look better.
  Now I come to the other point, which is most important—namely, that to alter the responsibility for the control of the inspectorate would give rise to serious practical difficulties. Again, it must be faced that the Franks Committee agreed that the inspectorate should be kept in close contact with developments of policy in the Departments responsible for the subject matter of the inquiries; and, indeed, nothing else would make sense.
  284
  In addition, the inspectors of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government must be in close physical contact with the Department. I ask your Lordships to appreciate this fact. With over 6,000 inquiries to arrange in a year, and over 100 inspectors travelling all over the country, the closest contact is needed between the Department who are receiving the appeals and the objections and the inspectors who are taking the inquiries, if intolerable delay and confusion are to be avoided. The process is—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would bear me out—that cases needing inquiry are streaming in the whole time and have to be fitted into the inspectors' tightly packed programmes. Dates for inquiries have to be settled with the parties, and it often happens, as those of us who are engaged in the law know from our own experience, that two or three dates have to be tried before an acceptable one can be found; then it may have to be altered to meet the convenience of one of the parties.
  This departure was tried—I do not know whether it was in Lord Silkin's time or not. The operations room of the inspectors was in a different building from the headquarters of the Ministry. But the difficulties and delays were such that that had to be abandoned, and this fact the Franks Committee accepted. If this arrangement is to be altered, the process of reaching decision, already too long, will take a great deal longer and, as I have said, the Government could not really tolerate it because it would be a denial of justice in itself. That applies especially to the smaller applicants who are waiting to know what the result will be because it affects their own private lives and their future.
  My right honourable friend is most anxious to shorten the time. This aim has been difficult to achieve because of the number of cases; but he is determined to achieve it. I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, not only as a former Minister and so experienced a Parliamentarian, but as a business man, the difficulty I am in. If I took this duty over, how could my Department exercise any genuine control over an inspectorate seated, as it must be seated, in the Ministry of Housing and Local Govenment, in daily contact with the Ministry, as the Franks Committee

  285
  says they must be, and necessarily dependent on the Minister for arranging their programme? The management of such a business—that is, arranging the programme, the dates and the alterations, for 6,000 inquiries in a year—is not work for which my Department is, or could reasonably he, equipped. I would also say that it is work for which the Minister ought to answer.
  Without any desire to catch up or catch out the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I crave in aid what he said on the last Amendment. The noble Lord was anxious that it should not be an isolated part of the procedures but should be the whole of the procedures which should be subject to inquiry. The difficulty that I see here is that if the Minister is responsible for the whole procedure and of making a decision in the end—the noble Lord, I am sure, had to make many decisions in corresponding matters when he was at the Ministry of Transport—then he must have some responsibility at this point, by seeing that all the steps necessay to give him the chance of arriving at a right decision are properly taken. I would suggest, therefore, that the inquiry is part—and a very important part—of the process by which he reaches his decision. The inspector makes his recommendation but does not make a provisional decision. I do not want that point blurred, because the Minister must take responsibility for the decision after having the argument put before him, with all the necessary information, by the inspectorate. It seems to Her Majesty's Government that the Minister who is responsible for the decisions arrived at by that process ought to be responsible and answerable for the functioning of the process.
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, appreciates that there I have been dealing with the matter on the basis of the functioning of the process. As to the appointment of these gentlemen, they are, of course, to be appointed only with my consent, as I told the House on the last occasion. When they come up for appointment as inspectors I have to be consulted and to consent; and equally they cannot be removed without my consent. That is the argument.
  There is just one other point that I should like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth to have in mind. Owing
  286
  to the Amendment with which we have just been dealing we have now further agreed that the Council on Tribunals shall be entitled to report on any matters regarding administrative procedures involving an inquiry or hearing in the sense that I explained to the noble Lord, which they may consider to be of special importance. Should the Council consider that the position of the inspectorate ought to be looked at as a matter of special importance they will be free to do so; and equally I shall be free to do so should the noble Lord find some reason to put before me and ask me to take that course. So it may be some satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to know that the Amendment which is in substitution for his Amendment has also produced a reaction on the position of the inspectorate and the possibility that that may be considered. I am extremely sorry to have taken up so much time but I feel that this is one of the matters which has most worried the House, and as I could not go further than I had gone I was most anxious to convince your Lordships that I had taken into consideration all the points which had been made.
  5.34 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for going to the trouble of stating the case he has. I say to him, with no disrespect, that, while I agree with the technical perfection of the case, I am not so much concerned with administrative convenience. I am concerned with the feeling of the people of this country; and I can only recall the words of the permanent head of his own Department before the Franks Committee. Sir George Coldstream then said that there was grave disquiet in this country upon the question of the impartiality of these public inquiries which are set up under administrative procedures.
  When the Report of the Franks Committee was first debated in Parliament it was debated in another place a week or ten days before it was debated in your Lordships' House. The Lord Privy Seal spoke on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and what he said was the first Government pronouncement upon this

  287
  very thorny problem—I quote from the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "The Government further recognise the importance of emphasising the independence of the inspectorate."
  I am not so concerned with inspectors who sit and hear inquiries on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government vis-à-vis that Department or vis-à-vis an individual and a local authority. Let us be frank about this. The disquiet of the public has been over inquiries into the acquisition of land for the erection of pylons on behalf of a nationalised industry, the Central Electricity Authority—inquiries presided over by an inspector of the Ministry of Power. That has been the prime criticism over these last two or three years. The criticism has had this basis: that practically 100 per cent. of the objections received have been on amenity grounds, and as the Ministry of Power inspector has no knowledge of or authority in amenity matters, which rest only with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, there have been two inspectors presiding, as I have said rather facetiously more than once in your Lordships' House—like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. With those two rather fictitious folk conducting inquiries the bulk of the people of this country who have had to go to these inquiries and prosecute their case have felt that they have fallen between two stools.
  It would be impudence on my part to start to lecture the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on the basis of British law and justice, but my elementary teaching was that not only must justice be done but that it must be quite apparent that it is being done; and that is the basis of the complaint of nearly everybody who goes to that type of inquiry. I know the difficulties, and I know that there is a good case to be made for the administrative convenience of a Department—and nobody could make that case better than the noble and learned Viscount. But as I have said, public administration is for the benefit of the public and not for the benefit of the Administration. What a Garden of Eden it would be for the bureaucracy of any country if they could ride roughshod over the rights of the common person! But they cannot; and the more difficulties that I can put in their way, the more I
  288
  intend to put in their way. That is the drawback of their trade.
  I would not quarrel with anything that has been said by the noble and learned Viscount, but nobody will convince the average Briton that there is any justice for him when he goes to what he believes is at least a quasi-judicial independent inquiry and finds it presided over by somebody who is really only interested in getting the policy of his master—in other words the Minister—through. However, I am not going to carry this matter any further. I am very glad that we have had this argument deployed, because this Bill goes to another place and we shall see what they think when they have to consider this point. I have read nearly every speech that has been made upon this subject, and in another place there was only one advocate for preserving the status quo. We shall see if they have changed their minds.
  I, my Lords, seize on what the noble and learned Viscount said in his concluding remark. That is why I welcome so gladly the Amendment to Clause 1. This matter will now come before the Council on Tribunals, and I do not expect for one moment that that has escaped the notice of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I know that he will set up the Council, as will be his responsibility; and he will see, I feel certain, that the personnel of that Council are men who will have wide experience and will not be—I say this because I cannot think offhand of a better word—the basis of a bureaucracy. That would defeat its whole object. I hope that the Council on Tribunals will be renowned for their independence of mind and not for their dependence on the patronage of any Government, whichever Government it may be. If that is the Council we are going to have, I am perfectly prepared to rest content on that. I am not going to argue for one moment that the balance of argument is all in my favour. There is an argument, but it ill becomes me to argue. I know that perhaps I may earn the rebuke of the noble and learned Viscount that I rather chided him before. I do not put myself up as the only spokesman on behalf of the freedom of the individual, but I confess that I am more concerned with the freedom of the individual and the rights of the individual than with the convenience of either Ministers or civil servants; and I always have been, even when I was in the Ministry.

  289
  I do not agree with the noble and learned Viscount that what I am pleading for would in any way delay justice. I think that in the cases I have cited it would speed justice, because it would mean a quicker decision than in many of these cases where there are two inspectors who have to reconcile their differences. My experience as a Minister has been that if a Department want to delay a decision they have the most wonderful technique for delaying it. The "In" and "Out" trays of a ministerial office provide the most efficient method of delaying decisions; not inspectors' reports. I have always had inspectors' reports in the Ministry of Transport with great expedition, and they have all been independent. I have a great admiration for the railway inspector, independent; the traffic commissioners, independent—although the Minister has the last word. I have never known anybody grumble about one of those decisions, because they have always felt that the inspector, at least, has been independent.
  However, as I said, I am not going to ask your Lordships to vote upon this Amendment. I think it would be foolish in your Lordships' House to do that, because we hear the arguments. If Parliament in its wisdom wants to go on in this matter—that is, in another place—then we can only hope that this Council on Tribunals will watch the position very carefully. I take it—and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would be kind enough to answer this point, which I meant to ask on the First Amendment—that all these matters will be subject to a report to Parliament, as it was originally intended the Council should report to Parliament on its first procedure. I take it that, now that the noble and learned Viscount has, by his first Amendment, included the administrative procedures, they will be subject to a report to Parliament. I shall rest content if the noble and learned Viscount will give an assurance on that, and I will then withdraw my Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, certainly I give the noble Lord that assurance. The intention is that matters that the Council raise proprio motu should be in the same position as those referred to me, and should finish with a report to Parliament.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 [Appeals from certain tribunals]:
  5.47 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) If any party to any inquiry or hearing as specified in subsection (2) of section three of this Act is dissatisfied in point of law with the order of the appropriate authority made after consideration of the report of the inspector or other person conducting the inquiry or hearing thereof given an or after the appointed day he may according as rules of court may provide either appeal therefrom to the High Court or require the appropriate authority to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this Amendment is put down because, owing to his regrettable absence through other and pressing business, the noble and learned Viscount could not be here when the matter was argued, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, replied for him. This is a simple point. I am hoping that the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment or, if he will not accept it in these words, that he will give it his consideration on its passage down to another place. If in any tribunal decision any appellant wishes to contest a point of law—I am putting it now in a layman's language—he has the right to go to a higher court. I desire to have precisely the same right given to the individual who is aggrieved on a point of law by a decision of the Minister after a local inquiry by an administrative procedure. I cannot, for the life of me, see why justice, as interpreted in this context, should be withheld from one individual and given to another.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his reply did not contest this, but he said that it was really a matter that should be put in a planning Act. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount would like to tell your Lordships what chances there are of having another planning Act, but I should think that they are as remote as it is possible to conceive. All I do in this Amendment to Clause 8 of the Bill is to repeat precisely the words that are applicable to tribunals, as set out in the First Schedule, and apply them to administrative procedures. May I

  291
  refresh your Lordships' memories? Clause 8 states:
  " Appeals from certain tribunals
  "If any party to proceedings before any such tribunal as is specified in paragraph 2, 3, 4 or 8"—
  and other paragraphs which it sets out—
  "of the First Schedule to this Act is dissatisfied in point of law with a decision of the tribunal given on or after the appointed day he may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal therefrom to the High Court or require the tribunal to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court."
  All I ask in this Amendment is that that shall be repeated in subsection (2)—the noble Viscount is covered by his first Amendment—for any party dissatisfied
  " in point of law with the order of the appropriate authority made after consideration of the report of the inspector or other person conducting the inquiry … "
  It is a point of simple justice. In my lay mind, there could be conceivably a point of law. May I make the suggestion that there might be lack of evidence upon which the Minister has come to a decision after the inspector has reported? If an appellant to a tribunal can go to a court of law on a point of law. I cannot see why an appellant to a local inquiry set up by a Ministry cannot do the same thing.
  On Committee stage, when I moved this Amendment, I said that if my interpretation of the Franks Report was correct, it said this, in effect, from first to last: the courts in preference to tribunals and the tribunals in preference to administrative procedures. But as in this complex social system of ours we cannot go to the courts on every conceivable point of difference between the Executive and the individual, we must have tribunals and administrative procedures. Nevertheless, to my mind there is no need to deny the ordinary citizen the right to go to the courts on a point of law if he thinks the Minister or the tribunal or the appropriate authority have been wrong. So I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will either accept this Amendment or give it further consideration in the Bill's passage to another place. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  5.52 p.m.
  LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I say a word on this Amendment? I could not be here on the earlier stage. It is important that there should be some recourse to the courts on points of law. In the Franks Committee Report there is a specific recommendation in regard to certain matters on planning appeals. Let me give an illustration which occurred in the courts recently in regard to the Malvern Hills. There was a question of whether planning permission was necessary or not for the extension of quarries on the Malvern Hills, and this depended on the technical point of whether or not they had been previously authorised by an Act of Parliament. That matter eventually came before the courts on a request for a declaration, and it was argued on behalf of the Minister that there was no recourse to that procedure. Now the Franks Committee have recommended that there should be an appeal to the courts of law on points of that kind.
  Again, on questions from a Minister, a case arose from Bridgend, Glamorganshire, where a shoemaker claimed to be a mental health officer so as to get extra superannuation. Apparently he was engaged in giving mental patients occupational therapy and he could get a higher pension as a mental health officer. He wanted the question of law tested in the courts and brought proceedings for the purpose, but the court had to tell him that they could not help him. Therefore there should be recourse to the courts.
  The only question is one of procedure. I find that the Franks Report recommends something in the nature of certiorari for it. If reasonable decisions are given and it is made clear that the old procedure of certiorari applies, then it might not be necessary to have all the complete and perhaps too encouraging procedure of appeals extended. If we have reasons, which I hope we shall have in due course, perhaps that would cover the grounds which the Amendment is suggesting.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say that I yield to no one in my wish that the citizen should have access to the courts. As I said to the House the other day, after the Question of my noble friend, Lord Elibank, on

  293
  legal aid, I believe that the right of a citizen to establish his rights in court, either against another citizen or against the State, is one of the fundamental requirements of true democracy; and I want to make it quite clear that I could not feel more strongly than I do on the matter. But I want to deal with this point on the basis of what exists today and of what is the position with regard to planning, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has mentioned that point in particular.
  The Franks Committee considered the need for such an appeal as is proposed here in cases of administrative decisions relating to land which involve the holding of inquiries, as set out in paragraph 359 of the Report. They noted that the right of appeal already existed in most of these cases: first of all, decisions on compulsory purchase orders made by local authorities under various powers, which is probably the most important group; secondly, decisions by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under certain Acts relating to roads, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will remember well; thirdly, decisions by any Minister vested with powers of compulsory acquisition by Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; fourthly, clearance orders under the Housing Act, and fifthly, approval of a development plan by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I have not troubled your Lordships with the actual citations of the Statutes, but your Lordships may take it that these are already covered by various Acts which I could name.
  In these cases the appeal to the High Court lies on the ground that an order or decision is ultra vires or procedurally faulty, and it has to be made within six weeks of the publication of the decision or confirmation of the order. The High Court may suspend the operation of the order or decision or any part of it, pending their consideration of the matter. If satisfied that it is ultra vires or procedurally faulty, they can quash the order or decision or any part of it. The Franks Committee made no criticism of the adequacy of that form of appeal. I think that the substantial point is this—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, presented it in this way—that they thought
  294
  "it should be applied to decisions on planning appeals in the same way as it applied to decisions in other cases relating to land."
  The Government accept this recommendation but, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, they consider that the appropriate way to give effect to it is by amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act.
  I must say that the noble Lord gave me a good thrust. He knows very well that no Minister of any Party can ever say in May what will appear in the next gracious Speech from the Throne. No doubt, if he chooses, he will go on describing the slaughter of the innocents and all the other Parliamentary terrorism which takes place with regard to future legislation. But what I want to put to the noble Lord is that there are certain other procedures under these Acts, besides the appeals, which should be considered in the same connection—for example, modification orders under Section 21, and orders relating to discontinuance of uses under Section 26. And therefore there is a case for saying that this could be better done in the context of the Planning Acts themselves. I cannot be specific, but I do not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that this would mean putting the matter off until the Greek Kalends.
  There are a number of points relating to planning procedures on which the Franks Committee made observations, and the Government wish to take action as soon as they can find an opportunity. The sort of points I have in mind are those raised in Recommendations 90, 91 and 93 of the Report. There is also the point that power will need to be taken to make rules giving effect to whatever the Council on Tribunals may say on planning procedures. So there are a number of points which might he usefully legislated upon in that field. What I think will be more important for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, however, is that, so far as I can see, it is not correct to speak as though the subject had no recourse to the courts in any of these cases. The noble Lord asked on April 29 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208, col. 1105], and he has really asked again to-day:
  "Why deny the citizen … recourse to the courts of this land?"
  If anyone wishes to challenge a planning decision on a point of law he can apply

  295
  to the High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the decision; or, in an appropriate case, he can seek a declaration. I think my noble and learned friend Lord Denning will bear me out that there are cases where the remedies of mandamus and prohibition are also open to him. Therefore I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we are not leaving it to the position in which an individual is barred from the courts. We are saying that we shall take an opportunity of bringing planning appeals into line and of tidying the matter up, but in the meantime I am glad to think that the individual is not barred from the courts.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Denning drew anticipatory attention to the question of the giving of reasons. I do not think it would be a good thing to spoil whatever surprise I have for your Lordships at the time when that Amendment comes by saying any more now, but I have my noble and learned friend's point well in mind. For all these reasons I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, not to press the Amendment, on my assurance that there is that recourse to the High Court, which I hope will be better.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I gladly accept that assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, and also his assurance that the Government have it clearly in mind to give attention to this when the tidying-up takes place on all the other things. I should hope that he will be able to redeem his promise, if I may put it that way, in the not too distant future, because I have an unhappy feeling—perhaps I should not say "unhappy"—that if he leaves it too long he will not have the opportunity. However, on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 [Extension of supervisory powers of superior courts]:
  6.6 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to the clause:
  "(3) Where any tribunal specified in the First Schedule to this Act is empowered to make any order or determination or where an appropriate authority is empowered by statute to make or confirm any order or determination which interferes with or takes away legal rights
  296
  enjoyed by any person the tribunal or appropriate authority as the case may be shall state the grounds upon which the order or determination is made."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down only to enable the Lord Chancellor to tell your Lordships the result of his deliberations upon the Amendment that was so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the Committee stage. This Amendment also was down on the Committee stage, and if the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, had repeated his Amendment to-day, I should not have put down this Amendment. As I say, it is moved only to allow the Lord Chancellor to tell your Lordships the result of his deliberations on this vital question of the giving of reasons I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has reminded your Lordships that at the Committee stage I had an Amendment down having the same effect as this Amendment. The Lord Chancellor was good enough to give me a certain assurance before the time had elapsed for putting down Amendments for this stage and, in confident anticipation of what he was going to tell your Lordships, I did not think it was necessary to repeat the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I have considered this point carefully. The way that my mind is moving (I do not want this to be held absolutely firmly against me; I only want to indicate it, because I should like your Lordships to know that I have been thinking the matter out) is that there should be inserted in the Bill a requirement to give reasons; that the requirement should come into force at a future date; that before that date I should have a chance of consulting the Council on Tribunals so as to get their views, and that, having consulted them, I should then have the power to exempt certain tribunals from giving reasons, but that that should be subject to Parliamentary approval, either affirmatively or negatively, so that anything I did in that regard would be subject to Parliamentary control.

  297
  At the moment, I think it would be a good thing for me to get the views on this point of the Council on Tribunals, as there are some matters that cause me great difficulty. I mentioned on Second Reading one kind of case where I could not find a point of law—the case of the Assessment Committees under the war pensions tribunals, where there is a tribunal which has a medical chairman and Service people sitting with him. The medical chairman examines a pensioner to decide whether he should be a 60 per cent. or 40 per cent. disability case. He goes through all the long records from the Ministry of Pensions, with which we are all familiar, and then examines the man himself; and having done so, he says that he thinks it is a 60 per cent. or 40 per cent. case. In many cases it is difficult to give reasons because it is a pure assessment. Or take the case to which the Franks Committee drew attention, that of the National Assistance committees. They say: "We think that Tom Smith earns £5 a week and should receive 38s. 6d." What he should receive is just an assessment of his need at that time and an assessment of his average earnings. It is very difficult to give detailed reasons.
  I have quoted those examples because I want your Lordships to know that I am all for tribunals giving reasons, yet I do not want to make it too difficult for the many thousands of admirable people all over the country who give their services on these tribunals by requiring them to give reasons in cases where the giving of reasons has not the same importance that it has in others. That is why I am considering whether there should be an opportunity to exclude some of those where reasons cannot be so important. I have said that only because I was hopeful that I should be able to come before your Lordships with the actual Amendment. The matter, however, needs some further consideration, and I give your Lordships the firm undertaking that an Amendment on this point will be placed in the Bill when it comes to another place. I hope your Lordships will think I cannot do more at the moment. But that is a firm and solemn undertaking, and I gladly give it.
  Lola LUCAS on CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful, as I think both the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh,
  298
  and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will be to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance. We are perfectly prepared to leave ourselves in his hands, with thanks for the trouble he has taken. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 [Interpretation]:
  6.13 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment I need not detain your Lordships for long because, as your Lordships will see, it is to leave out certain words and to insert others. The first point deals with special bodies, and I do not think your Lordships would have any objection to the course taken with regard to them. It extends the definition of a Minister so as to include any Board presided over by a Minister, such as the Army Council or the Board of Admiralty. That is necessary because of the new paragraph (c) which was placed in the Bill by the first Amendment. I explained on a previous Amendment the importance of "statutory inquiry." The Amendment is really consequential, and I ask your Lordships to accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 15, leave out from (" includes ") to (" and ") in line 16 and insert (" any Board presided over by a Minister, ' statutory inquiry ' means an inquiry or hearing held or to he held in pursuance of a statutory provision,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

  CAMMELL LAIRD AND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.